I'm of the opinion that Steven Avery is guilty but that he should have been not guilty based on the incredible amount of police incompetence.
He should have been not guilty like OJ, they framed a guilty man.
A proper police investigation would have resulted in so much less debate, regardless of who committed the murder.
Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls008200422/
[deleted]
Dassey's confession wasn't used in Steven Avery's trial.
Also, we have no idea how long the civil case would have taken and how much he would have won--IF he even won.
He has a long history of impulsive violent behavior. This is a guy who tried to kidnap his cousin at gun point. Who knows what he would have done to her had she not had the kid in the car. If he did it, it's certainly not a shocker given his character.
I just can't buy that he would happen to murder someone before the civil case settled.
Plotting it days in advance makes no sense
I agree with you.
shareI believe he is guilty, and I believe he should have been convicted. This requires a much deeper dive than simply watching the slanted and biased documentary to come to a conclusion.
Based on the documentary he's guilty but shouldn't have been convicted. Based on reality he's guilty as all get out...
shareHe is guilty and I don't even see much grey area. The sequence of events that would have to have taken place in order for him to be truly innocent are far too crazy to be plausible. He did it.
Is it really all that crazy to think that police frame people?
There's even a name for it............framing someone.
I don't know if he's guilty, but they sure wanted (and needed) him to be.
But they didn't frame him, nor does any evidence exist that they framed him, nor does this framing explain how Dassey's confession is supported by forensic evidence and his confession is in no way coerced and is available in its entirety on youtube.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
i thouht you were serious
shareIf he was framed please cite the actual submitted evidence by his defence for this, thanks. (Hint- Defence attorney claims as opposed to submitted evidence and claims by documentaries, podcasts & blogs don't count).
Please also explain how the cops successfully planted several samples of Avery's sweat DNA under the hood of the car in various places.
Please cite precisely how Dassey was coerced.
Please explain how Dassey knew without being told or prompted that Theresa Halbach was shot three times in the left side of the head.
Dassey said Avery was sweaty when he answered the door on the day Halbach died. Avery’s DNA, which likely came from his sweat, was found on Halbach’s car key in Avery’s bedroom.
Dassey said Halbach was chained up in handcuffs and leg irons on Avery’s bed. Avery admitted that he had just purchased handcuffs and leg irons a few weeks earlier.
Dassey said Avery used his .22 caliber rifle to shoot Halbach in the head. A bullet fired from Avery’s gun and found in Avery’s garage had Halbach’s DNA on it.
Dassey said Avery hid Halbach’s car and went under its hood to disable the battery. Avery’s DNA was found on the hood latch.
Dassey said Avery threw tires on the fire that they used to dispose of Halbach’s body. Charred parts of her bones, cell phone, PDA, and camera were found intertwined with steel belts from those tires.
^^Can you explain all this away also with validity if that's okay?
And if it's not too much trouble can you explain the phone call between Dassey and his mother?
Did she coerce him too?
Dassey: Yeah, but you might feel bad with... if I say it today.
Janda: Huh?
Dassey: About what all happened.
Janda: Huh?
Dassey: About what all happened.
Janda: What all happened? What are you talking about?
Dassey: About what me and Steven did that day.
Janda: So Steven did do it?
Dassey: Yeah.
Janda: Oh, he makes me so sick.
Dassey: I don't even know how I'm gonna do it in court, though.
Janda: What do you mean?
Dassey: I ain't gonna face him.
Janda: Face who?
Dassey: Steven.
Janda: You know what, Brendan?
Dassey: What?
Janda: He did it. You do what you gotta do. So in those statements, you did all that to her too?
Dassey: Some of it.
Janda: But what about when I got home at five, you were here.
Dassey: Yeah.
Janda: Yeah. When did you go over there?
Dassey: Well, I went over earlier and then came home before you did.
Janda: Why didn't you say something to me then?
Dassey: I don't know, I was too scared.
Wonder why Dassey was scared, since Steve is so lovable and of course railroaded.
Maybe it's because he claimed Avery molested him.
Janda: Did he make you do this?
Dassey: Ya.
Janda: Then why didn't you tell him that.
Dassey: Tell him what
Janda: That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.
Dassey: Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.
Janda: What do you mean touching you?
Dassey: He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.
Janda: Brendan I am your mother.
Dassey: Ya.
Janda: Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?
Dassey: What do you mean?
Janda: All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you?
Dassey: Ya.
Janda: Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.
Dassey: Ya.
Janda: Yes, and you would still be here with me.
Dassey: Yes, Well you know I did it.
Janda: Huh?
Dassey. You know he always touched us and that.
Janda: I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.
Dassey: Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.
Janda: What do you mean?
Dassey: Well he would like fake pumping him
Janda: Goofing around?
Brendan: Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what's her name…Jessica’s sister.
Janda: Teresa?
Brendan: Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that.
Since Steve is so innocent and framed, all the things I've asked should all be easy to explain with objective validity. Beyond all reasonable doubt you might say, so whenever you're ready.
Thanks in advance.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Brendan also said they raped and stabbed her in the bedroom.
You should list all the things Brendan said that don't support your narrative. That would be a fun exercise.
Since Steve is so innocent and framed
Sorry but can you answer my post in its entirety, rather than take a piecemeal approach? What do you care anyway, considering you don't know- sorry, make that you don't know if he's guilty or not?
You simply think his trial was unfair but seem to think that a judge rejecting a defence argument equates to an unfair trial, anyway.
And we've already covered that, so again why are you here?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Sorry but can you answer my post in its entirety,
What do you care anyway, considering you don't know- sorry, make that you don't know if he's guilty or not?
You simply think his trial was unfair but seem to think that a judge rejecting a defence argument equates to an unfair trial, anyway.
And we've already covered that, so again why are you here?
So you're either unwilling or unable to back up your position by answering post, gotcha.
If you don't know all the facts then perhaps you... should know the facts before putting your two cents in? Just throwin' it out there...
Yes with the emphasis being on arguments as opposed to evidence which would support said argument... and this to you equates to an unfair trial in an objective sense. Okay.
I read the primary sources. They're so much better than Netflix docos, I know it sounds weird, but hey, true.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
So you're either unwilling or unable to back up your position by answering post, gotcha.
You saw fit to answer, yet then refused to back up your answer, you just gave some bs reply that doesn't nullify all the stuff Dassey knew about Ms Halbach's murder that he shouldn't have known. I've come across murderer groupies like you before and you're fooling nobody with your Agnostic bs, just a heads up.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Again....Dassey came up with nothing...only repeated what the detectives told him...his conviction was overturned today!!!! YOU ARE WRONG!!! LMAO
shareAgain....Dassey came up with nothing...only repeated what the detectives told him...his conviction was overturned today!!!! YOU ARE WRONG!!! LMAO
What do you care anyway, considering you don't know- sorry, make that you don't know if he's guilty or not?
My favorite part was when he asked me to defend my position of "not knowing if Avery is guilty or not".
If I'm not mistaken, that's the one position that doesn't require "defending".
His logic appears a trifle skewed.
How so?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
He questions the statement that doggie doesn't know if Avery is guilty or not.
I think Doggie knows if he doesn't know. He is the only one who does know that he doesn't know. That's a fact. To add to that, no one actually knows. One surmises, believes, is convinced, persuaded. That's not absolute knowledge. Opinions are not facts, neither doggie's nor bfd's. He can question the reasons one reaches such an opinion but cannot, logically, question that that person holds that opinion. The fact is the person does.
Yeah and I'm not buying his neutral stance due to his decision to respond with what he felt was a rebuttal.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
As again you saw fit to answer my post proactively before running away when challenged.
And nobody believes your proclaimed neutral stance either, considering the excuses you tried to make for Dassey.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Well lets see if zellner exonerates him - and then maybe you can answer your own ridiculously long comment.
shareBut you should be able to answer, considering you're so right and I'm so wrong and good old Steve is so innocent and railroaded and framed and whatever other crap his groupies huff n puff about. The fact that you're unwilling or unable to back up your tiresome bs says it all about the weakness of your argument for Avery being innocent.
You're just another murderer groupie hot air blowhard, incapable of defending your position because your scumbag murderer and rapist is guilty as sin and had he not have been wrongfully convicted originally would probably have committed murder anyway, low life predator that he is.
Now go away you boring little nonce shill, nobody normal is interested in your cheerleading for murderers, you creepy little weirdo.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
considering you're so right and I'm so wrong and good old Steve is so innocent and railroaded and framed and whatever other crap his groupies huff n puff about
You're just another murderer groupie hot air blowhard, incapable of defending your position because your scumbag murderer and rapist is guilty as sin and had he not have been wrongfully convicted originally would probably have committed murder anyway, low life predator that he is.
Now go away you boring little nonce shill, nobody normal is interested in your cheerleading for murderers, you creepy little weirdo
Well that's the impression you're giving considering your pulled outa thin air hypotheses & pretzel logic, sorry.
Hey, just calling it like I see it. Either that or he's jaw droppingly illogical.
I've asked you a bunch of times to back up your claims and you've refused each and every time and then wailed we were done.
No they created them, hence their omissions and selective reporting.
Considering people like you tend to fall for their bs hook line and sinker, I can't see the trend of created controversies and innocence fraud ending any time soon either.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
And yet not one of us, I believe, has actually said that. What we have said is that we don't know.
And then you become insulting.
I don't like innocence fraud.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I never said he was innocent or that he was framed. Just him being framed is just as plausible (to me) as a him murdering someone out of nowhere just before he's set to get a life changing amount of $$$.
Avery's sweat DNA
was shot three times in the left side of the head.
Dassey said Avery was sweaty when he answered the door on the day Halbach died. Avery’s DNA, which likely came from his sweat, was found on Halbach’s car key in Avery’s bedroom
Dassey said Halbach was chained up in handcuffs and leg irons on Avery’s bed. Avery admitted that he had just purchased handcuffs and leg irons a few weeks earlier.
Dassey said Avery used his .22 caliber rifle to shoot Halbach in the head. A bullet fired from Avery’s gun and found in Avery’s garage had Halbach’s DNA on it.
You don't know what DNA actually is which is not my problem. Avery's sweat DNA was found on Ms Halbach's key, which in this sample could also have been skin cells & was indeed found in hood of the car.
"The car key, when they talk about that in the [documentary] it makes you believe blood was on the car key for that DNA thing. It was actually sweat, perspiration from Steven Avery," Hermann says.
You're quoting Hermann about sweat being on the key? How wo0ld he know? He's LE not a scientist.
Here is Sherry Culhane's testimony about the key on Direct examination by Gahn:
.
A. And I held the metal part of the key in one hand
16 and I swabbed the black -- I should show you up
17 here -- this black rubberized part of the key,
18 with a sterile cotton swab. And I did it in very
19 much the same way that I swabbed the Pepsi can
20 that we looked at earlier.
21 At this point, there were no visible
22 indications of any staining, so I was primarily
23 interested to see if I could recover DNA that had
24 been left behind by possibly touching. So I
25 swabbed all of the surfaces, the front and back
and the edges of the key, and that's what I did
2 my analysis on.
[Then Gahn elicits Culhane's testimony about actually trying the key in the Toyota RAV which she says fit. Then he returns to the testing of the key]
Q. The buccal swab that you took of this key, did
20 you submit that to DNA testing?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And were you able to develop a profile from the
23 swabbing of Item C, the key to Teresa Halbach's
24 car?
25 A. Yes.
Q. And does this slide clearly and correctly show
2 your findings?
3 A. Yes, it does.
4 Q. Would you explain to the jury your findings.
5 A. Again, we looked at the same 15 markers. And at
6 each one of these markers I developed a type.
7 And that is the profile that characterizes the
8 swabbing that I took from the key.
9 Q. Q. And, again, this profile that you developed from
10 the key, is that a profile that came from a male
11 individual?
12 A. Yes, it is. And that's -- We have an X and a Y
13 chromosome which indicate the male individual.
14 Q. And did you compare the profile that you
15 developed from your swabbing of this key with the
16 DNA profile that you developed from the buccal
swab of Steven Avery?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. And does this next slide correctly show your
20 findings?
21 A. Yes, it does.
that you don't know what DNA is or understand reasonable doubt and seem to feel I should read testimony again when I already agree with the court's verdict
What justification do you have for feeling that all of these things randomly happening parallel to each other is more likely than guilt?
Cuz he took part in the investigation and the jury already heard from Defence experts as well as prosecution experts and rejected the defence experts testimony and convicted... that's why.
Okay. Can you please go back and read what I said about not being interested in experts who didn't testify at the trial or take part in the investigation?
And can you cite where the court established coercion? And can you explain why they were wrong not to, if they didn't and why the jury was wrong not to accept coercion... or not?
I already provided the youtube links of Dassey's entire confession. Yet again can you specifically point out where he's being coerced via times? Or not?
Can you also explain why you think a blog has more gravitas than a court of law?
No. Accurately pointing out that you don't know what DNA actually isn't a rant, it's simply accurately telling you how you don't know what DNA is. You think sweat isn't a form of DNA. It's not a rant to correct this.
The information is his conviction. I agree with the court and am therefore not required to back up my agreement with information as the information is in the court transcripts. One who asserts must prove or at the very least back up their assertion with something tangible. Which you haven't done. Again the onus is upon you to prove innocence, not for me to prove guilt as that's been done by the court already.
No they're simply things that you feel are problems but which a jury didn't or the court, again after the defence had their day in court.
So then you are saying that contamination, coercion, corruption and misconduct all occurring simultaneously together is more probable than the evidence pointing toward guilt due to factual guilt on the part of the former defendants?
Despite there being no evidence for this? See this is where we differ, sorry.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
You think sweat isn't a form of DNA. It's not a rant to correct this.
One who asserts must prove or at the very least back up their assertion with something tangible.
So then you are saying that contamination, coercion, corruption and misconduct all occurring simultaneously together is more probable than the evidence pointing toward guilt due to factual guilt on the part of the former defendants?
But that's just it it is a carrier ergo sweat can yield DNA via cellular DNA material and nobody rational is interested in your smoke and mirrors bs, but only whether this can be used as evidence which it was.
Okay then, cite where the court threw put the key and sweat DNA, since your claim is correct. For the nth time, can you do this or not?
How do you think anyone is ever falsely convicted? Because some or all of these things have -- perhaps or absolutely -- taken place. Because there are and have been false convictions. Scientists lie, or they make mistakes. DAs lie, or misrepresent or cheat by withholding evidence. Defense lawyers are inadequate and underpaid or appointed. The state has the deeper pockets. SA was falsely convicted once before....or do you agree with Peterson and Kusche that "DNA can be planted"?
My god, how stubborn you are.
shareOkay I get that you think that people who disagree with your claims with no evidence to show for them, aren't here "for a serious discussion". But I'm not here to entertain your personal fallacies.
Circular reasoning from them imo- everything is all wrong cuz Steve & Brendan are innocent"- combined with a form of magical thinking. I've come across the exact same style of argument before in other cases from other sup;porters of other offenders. It's like they all sing from the same hymn sheet.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Dassey's confession is supported by forensic evidence
But it is as Dassey claimed that Avery shot Ms Halbach two or three times in the left side of the head, which is consistent with Ms Halbach's wounds.
He claims Avery was sweaty and Avery's sweat DNA was found. He claimed Avery went under the bonnet of the car to disable it and Avery's sweat DNA was found under the car. So yeah his confession is supported by forensic evidence.
Your problem is is that you're taking a piecemeal approach to the case rather than viewing it in its totality.
I've already given several examples of how Dassey's confession is supported by forensic evidence min another post. Please address them, thanks.
The confessions weren't coerced, you merely passionately believe they were coerced. Please highlight specifically how he was coerced, via his taped confession in its entirety rather than the soundbite friendly edited version from a Netflix documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYOaIDxirHE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJt6j5E1y_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN-4qFhRttE
Just gimme the times on the links when he's coerced during these interviews so I can examine them, thanks.
Please also explain the phone conversation with his mother where Dassey proactively confesses. Did his mother coerce him too?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
He claims Avery was sweaty and Avery's sweat DNA was found. He claimed Avery went under the bonnet of the car to disable it and Avery's sweat DNA was found under the car. So yeah his confession is supported by forensic evidence.
Dassey mentioning sweat and sweat being found means his confession is supported by forensic evidence, regardless of your personal contortionist logic and conflation of possibility with actual probability.
Yes there was sweat DNA, see Avery's conviction for details.
It could be a hair, saliva, blood, semen, skin, sweat, mucus or earwax. All it takes is a few cells to obtain enough DNA information to identify a suspect with near certainty.
in the left side of the head
I'm not interested in your conflation of defence argument with evidence or your repetition of lost defence argument which was rejected by a jury as repeating a rejected argument doesn't give it more gravitas just because it's repeated on the internet this time around.
No I said the cops never specified which side, Dassey just knew it was the left side as he took part in Ms Halbach's rape and murder.
You're projecting. You expect me to go along with your claims despite you not providing anything to back them up, which is pretty deluded.
'Bye and thanks for the good luck wishes, it makes our parting less bitter.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Wow, MME can't seem to get along with anyone these days. I wonder why that is...
She seems to want her own echo chamber where people can speculate all day and are never asked for evidence to support their claims. That's a conspiracy theorist paradise, right there.
Since you support Vile's opinions, you might ask him this:
He wrote:
No I said the cops never specified which side
He [Brendan] told police that Avery shot Halbach on the left side of her head.A fragment from the left side of her skull showed two bullet holes.
Well the pool of blood was there anyway & bullet fragments with Ms Halbach's DNA, so I reckon the murder did indeed occur there. As for the lack of spatter/spray, I don't feel that being shot necessarily should leave such things
He also said that he helped Avery clean a large reddish brown stain on the garage floor using gasoline, bleach, and some other product; there was an approximate three-foot patch that reacted to luminol
How does anyone know how much or how little blood was in the bedroom or in the garage? How does anyone know how much blood should have been there? And how does anyone know how much would be impossible to clean up?
perhaps you missed my post 2 you in the flurry of activity, but i really would like 2 hear your thoughts on this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5189670/board/nest/259549595?d=259842585#259842585
i have a question 4 you, if you have an opinion, and btw, i now think sa is guilty. but, still have some questions.
if sa did shoot th in the head 2-10 times, do you believe it was in the garage, and if so, why was there only a pool of blood 2 clean up and no spray or spatter anywhere? if not in the garage, why were bullet fragments there, one with th's dna?
you have a logical mind and obviously know the case, so i'm interested in your thoughts on this.
eta: or jeff, mrbfd, etc.
… where did all these crickets come from?
Hi and apologies for my late reply, I did indeed kinda get caught up there.
Well the pool of blood was there anyway & bullet fragments with Ms Halbach's DNA, so I reckon the murder did indeed occur there. As for the lack of spatter/spray, I don't feel that being shot necessarily should leave such things.
In the UK, Ian Huntley was convicted for the murder of Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman, who left no traces of themselves at his home, but Huntley was still convicted, for example. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
There's also no guarantee that a murder might leave the traces we might expect it to leave.
Dassey's statements were used to support the application for the warrant that was issued in March 2007 that lead to the discovery of a bullet that was conclusively matched to Avery's .22 rifle and yielded Teresa Halbach's DNA. He told police that Avery shot Halbach on the left side of her head. A fragment from the left side of her skull showed two bullet holes. He also said that he helped Avery clean a large reddish brown stain on the garage floor using gasoline, bleach, and some other product; there was an approximate three-foot patch that reacted to luminol and a bleach bottle found in the garage.
Wasn't there also bleach stains on Dassey's jeans?
Dassey also claimed that both were cleaning the garage that day anyway and iirc Avery made this claim also- maybe they cleaned such traces. Seems coincidental that they're accused of murdering Ms Halbach in the garage and both admit they were cleaning the garage.
How does anyone know how much or how little blood was in the bedroom or in the garage? How does anyone know how much blood should have been there? And how does anyone know how much would be impossible to clean up?
I think your questions are thoughtful ones but I don't think they nullify the evidence against both, ultimately.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
thanks 4 replying. better later than never :). i know posts were coming fast and furious 4 a bit there.
where did pool of blood come from? shots in head? if so, it seems reasonanble there would be spatter, even if microscopic, but there wasn't.
In the UK, Ian Huntley was convicted for the murder of Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman, who left no traces of themselves at his home, but Huntley was still convicted, for example. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Sorry to heart you're injured, hope you recover soon and aren't laid up very long.[/cheers]
Sorry also, but I respectfully but strongly disagree, no offence.
People have expectations of a crime, but the crime didn't quite happen the way they expected it to, therefore evidence of the crime can be dismissed, and again with respect that's a fallacy. I think we're somewhat dazzled these days by the CSI effect. However, just because detection technology improves, doesn't mean that the burden of proof is therefore raised to go with the improved technology. Long before DNA profiling was used, people were convicted of crimes.
Just because a crime didn't occur the way we see it occurring on tv, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I hear you to a degree, but for example I'm a horror fan. I've seen a ton of zombie flicks with cool FX head shots with gnarly splatter. So that's my perception of a gunshot, but that doesn't mean that's the case.
I don't precisely know which wounds caused the blood pool, nor do I think it's ultimately relevant as mathematical certainty or a blow by blow account isn't required by any court.
Actually plenty of killers left no DNA evidence at the crime scene who were convicted, several of them serial killers.
Simon Hall in the UK, left no DNA at the crime scene. He claimed innocence and his supporters made a big thing of no DNA evidence. Years later, Hall confessed that he did murder a pensioner who he stabbed to death and was convicted for.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-36576113
Serial killer Rose West was convicted in the UK purely on circumstantial evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_West
Mark Nash in my country brutally stabbed and mutilated two elderly pensioners and left no DNA at the crime scene. He was convicted of two more murders and convicted of the pensioner murders 17 years later as while he left no DNA the victims left blood spots on his jacket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grangegorman_killings
In the US, Gary Heinz Jnr. slaughtered eight members of his family in a trailer home and left none of his DNA at the crime scene.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/guy-heinze-jr-ga-man-guilty-of-killing-father-and-7-others-in-mobile-home-but-wont-get-death-penalty/
Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I honestly don't see any evidence of coercion re Dassey and I went in kinda expecting to see it. Besides, he confessed to his own mother and I very much doubt if she coerced him. For him to be innocent, we have to allow that he was coerced AND lied to his mother.
Sorry and again with respect I feel that you're engaging in a fallacy, namely conflating possibility with actual probability.
Yes, luminol- while used by forensic investigators the world over- is nonetheless a presumptive agent, so yes it could have possibly highlighted bleach. It could also have possibly highlighted turnip juice or horseradish sauce, seeing as we're entertaining possibility.
However, which is the more likely substance the luminol highlighted, in a place where a convicted killer claimed the murder occurred, and whose statement is corroborated by evidence? Bleach, turnip juice, horseradish source, or blood? And if it was bleach, it could have been used to clean up the crime scene, which both admitted to doing, meaning they could have already removed traces.
And if it was bleach that was used for innocuous purposes then again, we have to allow that the luminol is now wrong, on top of the prosecution misconduct, corruption, coercion, jury misconduct and defence incompetence- the improbability factor shoots way up, sorry.
No problem and my apologies to anyone if I originally came across as caustic, I wasn't aware that this board had regs and tbh have spent the past few years campaigning for a murder victim and dealing with the former defendant's thoroughly toxic, obnoxious and particularly callous fanclub, so have had a rather jaundiced view of such things as of late, neglecting to consider that there are people who may genuinely feel some sort of miscarriage of justice occurred here.
Again, I thoroughly disagree with such a belief, but again, my apologies for snapping at some people.
Cheers.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
thank you.
it's late here now and i'm tired, but will try to do justice to your post, and much appreciate your refreshing respectfulness, especially as we disagree on some points. that, to me, is one of the true measures of another.
i've never seen an episode of any of the multitude of CSI shows, am not a horror fan or fan of violent films/TV shows, so these things have no effect on me or inform my opinions in any way. i'm pretty much driven by what's commonly referred to as common sense.
if i'm to believe brendan's 'confession,' i must believe after sa stabbed thj in the stomach, while in sa's trailer bedroom, after tying or cuffing both hands and feet to the bedposts -- of which there's zero evidence, and should be; we ARE talking about a young, fit woman fighting for her life, after all -- and both of them raping her, as well as brendan slitting her throat at sa's direction, and one of the two cutting off her hair and putting it on top of the dresser, it strains my credulity past its breaking point to believe all of this happened without leaving ANY dna, or even a strand or more of the supposedly cut hair.
i'm unfamiliar w/ any of the cases you linked to, but did take a look and am hard pressed to see similarities, beyond murder. in the first instacnce someone w/the same low IQ as brendan -- 70 -- confessed falsely, was convicted, until a year later when the real killer confessed, for unknown reasons, or reasons i don't recall.
in the 2nd, bodies of both her and her husband's many victims were found buried in both of their residences.
looked at it earlier today, but don't now recall the details of nash. sorry. but am not talking about dna left by perpetrator, nut of victim who was supposedly raped twice, stabbed, throat slit, then shot 2-10 times.
fortunately there were no bottles of turnip juice or horseradish sauce found in garage, but was a bottle of bleach there, entered into evidence, and bd had bleach stains on jeans -- also entered into evidence.
wuld continue this, esp. about brendan and why i see coercion, but yhis is unusually long post for me and is tiring. will try to continue tomorrow.
i've never seen an episode of any of the multitude of CSI shows, am not a horror fan or fan of violent films/TV shows, so these things have no effect on me or inform my opinions in any way. i'm pretty much driven by what's commonly referred to as common sense.
i'm unfamiliar w/ any of the cases you linked to, but did take a look and am hard pressed to see similarities, beyond murder. in the first instacnce someone w/the same low IQ as brendan -- 70 -- confessed falsely, was convicted, until a year later when the real killer confessed, for unknown reasons, or reasons i don't recall.
if i'm to believe brendan's 'confession,' i must believe after sa stabbed thj in the stomach, while in sa's trailer bedroom, after tying or cuffing both hands and feet to the bedposts -- of which there's zero evidence, and should be; we ARE talking about a young, fit woman fighting for her life, after all -- and both of them raping her, as well as brendan slitting her throat at sa's direction, and one of the two cutting off her hair and putting it on top of the dresser, it strains my credulity past its breaking point to believe all of this happened without leaving ANY dna, or even a strand or more of the supposedly cut hair.
Fair enough but if neither of us have any actual close up experience with gunshot wounds, then again, just because a crime doesn't occur the way you (or I for that matter or the next person) expect it to occur, doesn't mean it didn't occur and certainly such an expectation doesn't nullify evidence submitted in court against a defendant on trial for murder.
The similarities are that none of these convicted murderers left DNA evidence at the crime scenes, which you had earlier opined that such absence of evidence was strange or weird or odd.
His confession, unlike Dassey's, was not supported by evidence.
But there is evidence. The handcuffs & leg irons for starters as Dassey claims that they raped Ms Halbach while she was restrained in precisely those things and lo and behold, they're found.
But with the greatest possible respect it's irrelevant what your personal criteria is and if it personally sounds unbelievable to you.
All that's relevant is that if the evidence was deemed sufficient to arrest, charge, try and convict the defendant.
It's irrelevant if you agree with defence arguments, but only on whether the jury agreed with them. They didn't.
I feel you're taking a piecemeal approach to the evidence and conflating possibility with actual probability.
I analyse and interpret the data and come to the most reasonable logical conclusion
for me, had i been on the jury -- or for me now to be completely satisfied w/verdict -- i would want expert testimony from an expert on gunshot and knife wounds to get me to beyond all reasonable doubt. you're there, the jury was there.
if i'm given a reasonable explanation for how a woman could be twice raped, stabbed in stomach, her throat slit in one location yet not even a drop of her blood or other dna was found there, or when she was carried from bedroom to garage, then shot 2-10 times, and only one tiny speck of her dna found on bullet fragment, i'd be 100 per cent on board.
- he said sa bound her to bedposts with rope, later said cuffs/leg irons. no evidence on bedposts that either were used -- rubbing marks, traces of rope. even though bd said she was conscious and had to have been struggling against rapes, and even more when being stabbed and throat cut
- no skin cells etc of th's found on cuffs/irons, despite life/death struggle; dna of unknown person found on them
- if shot 10 times and then burned in pit, other bullets should have been in pit, even if melted
- no hair found, even though bd said sa had cut her hair off and put on dresser
- he insisted knife used put under th's car seat, but never found, or any traces it had been there
… oh excellent, now someone's reported 1 of my posts . no clue which 1, or why, but have a couple of thoughts on who. got to love acts of cowardice. for the record, i've never once reported anyone here, for any reason, but good on you for your bravery.
anyway.
But sorry that's not what BARD entails. BARD means providing a credible, plausible explanation that explains away the totality of the evidence, not each piece of evidence viewed in isolation from each other.
1. by degrees; bit by bit; gradually
2. in or into pieces or piece from piece: to tear something piecemeal.
adj
fragmentary or unsystematic: a piecemeal approach.
The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
As I said earlier you could probably attach reasonable doubt to any sample of evidence in any murder case, provided you took a piecemeal approach, but explaining away all the evidence which supports each piece, is much harder to do credibly.
Again a perceived oddity or anomaly doesn't actually nullify the evidence against a suspect, it's simply something that some may find strange or out of the ordinary.
Sorry I disagree- none of Dassey's confession should be supported by evidence if it's false. The things you feel doesn't support Dassey's confession are subjective, whereas what corroborates his confession does so objectively.
if shot 10 times and then burned in pit, other bullets should have been in pit, even if melted
No, sorry you're hypothesising and expecting that to trump the totality of the evidence and that's honestly not how it works.
Also, who's to say that a confession has to be 100% absolutely correct without the slightest inconsistency made for whatever contextual reason?
Maybe Dassey was stressed and doesn't remember every last single detail correctly.
And yes of course he's being deceptive in parts, he's just been caught and is probably trying to figure out how much trouble he's in.
But again, with respect you seem to be using arguments or highlighting issues that were already thoroughly thrashed out in court anyway. Touch DNA for example
Yes bodies were found on the Wests property, just as evidence linking Avery to Ms Halbach's murder was found on his property, but Rose claimed she never knew her husband was a serial killer. No physical evidence actually linked her to the bodies, just as no DNA evidence exists against Dassey. But she was still convicted, as was Dassey as were serial killers Levi Belfield and Harold Shipman, with no physical evidence against them either.
Again a perceived oddity or anomaly doesn't actually nullify the evidence against a suspect, it's simply something that some may find strange or out of the ordinary. But it doesn't therefore prove innocence or anything.
CV makes some good points, as do others on opposite 'side,' but i agree proving innocence is not goal.
a jury did say otherwise, which is his/her premise, which is fine, and s/he agrees with. i still have a few remiaing doubts i deem as reasonable s/he doesn't.due 2 context b4ore and now, assume CV feels guilt was proven. and i'm not as certain, which is fine, but is all the same opinion on which we differ 2 some degree.
a jury has already said otherwise, question is, does everyone agree w/jury, esp. knowing more info than jury did? sword swings both ways.
I'm very sorry to hear that, I know I can be rough around the edges so am not surprised by mme's petty antics but you seem a very courteous person so you have my sympathies. Pay em no mind.
Please also accept my apologies re touch DNA- I was having multiple convos and conflated another poster's comments with yours and again my apologies and my bad.
actually no. it's not up to me, or a juror, to provide any alternative explanation/narrative; it's the job of the prosecution to prove their case, or defense's to raise RD. again, i'm not looking at each piece of evidence in isolation, or piecemeal. no disrespect intended, but perhaps you're not entirely clear on what piecemeal means
The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
surely you're not suggesting that all 10 .22 shots exited her body, or bullets could vanish? never said it trumped all the rest of evidence. topic was what evidence did not support his confession, and that did not. disagree my points on this are subjective, but you're free to think so
nice post, overall, and thank u. will respond in detail i can later -- to both. at moment can only respond in short posts, as shoulder hurting.
shareinjury flared up. so not able 2 respond before now.
I'm very sorry to hear that, I know I can be rough around the edges so am not surprised by mme's petty antics but you seem a very courteous person so you have my sympathies. Pay em no mind.
Please also accept my apologies re touch DNA- I was having multiple convos and conflated another poster's comments with yours and again my apologies and my bad.
Prosecution did prove its case bard and the defence failed to raise RD. That's it.
But there wasn't a lack of evidence. You merely feel that there was re Ms Halbach's remains and somehow feel that this is akin to RD. It isn't, sorry.
No, you simply personally think the finding of the key is abnormal. Jury didn't and neither do I.
Coulda shoulda woulda? Something you feel is strange is cause for overturning the conviction?
If it doesn't trump the evidence, why are you making an issue of it, as if it's significant enough to make the conviction unsound when you yourself acknowledge it doesn't trump the evidence? Like the hair, really.
Yeah again he's been caught and trying to figure out how much trouble he's in so obviously he'll attempt deception
Because if not, then his confession wasn't a train wreck, was excepted as evidence and it's just your opinion that it was a trainwreck, which doesn't supersede a jury's opinion
Yes, you're absolutely right I am indeed hypothesising and am thoroughly validated doing so as A), I'm not wildly hypothesising, B) am not expecting a hypothesis to trump evidence submitted in court and most pertinently of all C), I'm hypothesising on something that isn't even an issue nor was regarded as a compelling enough issue by the court or jury.
[deleted]
would appreciate it if you didn't respond to me again in this exchange
That's transparently an attempt to have the last word and muzzle your adversary from responding to a tract full of arguments. By linking disrespect with a potential response, you hope to discourage catbookss from responding.
If you don't want to read a response, fine. But this being a public board, others might like to. Your adversary in the exchange can, and has every right to, address the content of your very long post for others to consider, while not specifically addressing the response to you.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
This message has been hidden because the user is in your ignore list. Whattwat
Isn't that cute, the pathetic obsessive widdle troll is reduced to following me about like a yappy little poodle. I guess Z was right. It doesn't like being ignored.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Pathetic.
shareThis message has been hidden as the user is in your ignore list-slwhatevs
I expect Mme to show up next whinging.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
[deleted]
So what proper valid errors did the court and jury engage in? How did the jury get it wrong? If you can't specify how then you're merely disagree with their conclusion, which doesn't equate to an objectively valid error.
No. I don't merely feel it. I have court established fact to back it up and if you disagree then the onus is upon you to specify how the court screwed up.
it's irrelevant whether I'm objective or the most biased person on the face of the planet, as it doesn't refute my agreement with the court and I'm frankly bemused as to how you'd think otherwise as I didn't convict Avery or Dassey.
Oh yeah, she's a groupie without a doubt. Unlike you I've had years of experience dealing with such callous low lives. I've already explained to you where that term came from and anyone who uses it is a murderer groupie plain and simple. You probably don't wish to believe such people exist but unfortunately they do. Her bizarre and utterly baseless conspiracy theories is a veiled exercise in victim denigration and thoroughly disrespects Teresa Halbach and her family as far as I'm concerned so yeah, she's a creepy hybristophiliac murderer groupie who willfully shills for a murderer and psychopath because she gets a thrill out of the murderers crimes. it empowers her on some dark level she's probably loathe to admit to herself, but she isn't fooling me as all of these groupies are cut from the same cloth re their arguments and attitudes, all that differs is whatever murderer they're shilling for
I don't see the point in continuing this discussion sorry and would appreciate it if you didn't respond to me again in this exchange, as it's pointless we're not gonna change each others minds here.
You're right, I'm not.
That said I can for example list the legal, procedural and systematic errors that acquitted Amanda Knox, so try me.
Besides you're missing the point. Why didn't Avery's lawyers not highlight any? He had more than one team as well. Did they highlight any? If not, why? Where multiple defence teams incompetent? Perhaps in on the conspiracy? To go with the contamination corruption and coercion as well as the alleged jury misconduct? Do you realise, with respect that allegations of jury misconduct isn't actually alleging that the evidence itself is dissipated?
Seems like the fates aligned in a perfect storm to stack the deck against poor old Steve. Either that or he's y'know guilty. Crazy as that may sound to some.
Actually I'm being very fair. One who asserts must prove. Or at least back up one's assertion with something solid that would make the other party reconsider.
Here the assertion is that the trial was unfair. I ask how, which is neither unreasonable or unfair to ask. No answer is forthcoming but nonetheless I'm expected to take the assertion at face value. Which is not a reasonable or fair or logical expectation. Same unreasonable expectations apply for evidence of innocence and corruption. Those who agree with the court are expected simply to accept these assumptions, no back up required. You can't expect me or others to accept that without evidence or back up, sorry. You're far from stupid. You're not thick, I know from talking to you. Do you honestly realise the implications of such expectations? C'mon.
Of course courts get it wrong, hell Avery's a genuine exoneration for the rape, no question. I just need to know how this court got it wrong is all.
I have no need to entertain what defence lawyers who had their shot at the trial and lost, say now about the case, and have already commented on Zelner and exonerating evidence, so I've no need to reiterate my position in this regard.
Flattered but no sorry, it's not my argument or what one perceives to be my personal flaws that one needs to refute or highlight but the courts and jury's. Once that's done via a compelling case for innocence corruption or unfair trial that can trump the court verdict, then my agreement with the court can be validly refuted. And I have no problem being refuted on such serious issues with such grave consequences whether you believe that or not as I do not wish for a miscarriage of justice whether you believe that either.
But such serious issues need serious evidence.
Again you caught me on my phone and I'm not sure where precisely sure he said it. Gimme a while to get to my pc and I'll go hunting which btw you should be doing.
Calling it like I see it with Mme. Creepy cultist lexicons, mad conspiracies, expecting hypotheses to trump evidence, responses to posts that denigrate victims with what seems to give the denigration legitimacy, petty reporting - if she isn't a groupie, she sure ticks many boxes. You've had seven months. I've had about seven years dealing with such types. I'll take my experience over yours sorry.
I'll get back to you either way re Dassey.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
As per you in a previous reply to catbookss:
Her bizarre and utterly baseless conspiracy theories is a veiled exercise in victim denigration and thoroughly disrespects Teresa Halbach and her family as far as I'm concerned so yeah, she's a creepy hybristophiliac murderer groupie who willfully shills for a murderer and psychopath because she gets a thrill out of the murderers crimes. it empowers her on some dark level she's probably loathe to admit to herself, but she isn't fooling me as all of these groupies are cut from the same cloth re their arguments and attitudes, all that differs is whatever murderer they're shilling for
No you just take on board what you wish and disregard what you wish, meaning you can disregard my comments on exonerating evidence and can further disregard my comments that I wasn't on the jury which convicted either Avery or Dassey.
Therefore my not unreasonable request for evidence to back up a claim becomes a superior omnipotent persona when in reality it's really just a case of an ordinary guy asking for evidence for extraordinary claims.
Not interested in those I stick on ignore or irrelevancies on my opinion of certain posters.
I'm only interested in whether or not you can back up your earlier assertion of an unfair trial with something viable to support it.
I'd also like to know how the appellate court which upheld the conviction also got it wrong or was unfair and again, these are not outlandish or unreasonable requests.
If you can provide valid examples which supports what you took the trouble to post then I'm all ears and will take them on board.
If you are unable to do so then I cant accept your assertion, on the grounds that it's just that - an assertion without backing.
You need to realise that your opinion of me is irrelevant and the only way for you to convince others is to provide evidence of innocence or valid examples of how the trial was unfair.
Anything else is superfluous.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Excuse me? My purpose in posting to you was in response to the contemptuous remarks you posted against mme. I did not post to debate you about the Avery/Dassey case. In our previous dialogue I never did challenge you and your thought process. I inquired of you to clarify certain aspects of the case. You responded and I acquiesced. Afterwards, I came to the understanding I would lose any and all debates with you as your intellect is far superior than mine.
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
Already covered and not interested in your opinion on what a dick you think I am. Any issue you raise that isn't to do with the Teresa Halbach case is irrelevant. Including how contemptuous you feel I am to certain posters. If you don't wish to debate Ms Halbach's case with me on a board which is pretty much about her case, then I dunno what to tell you. You could use the ignore function. I'm only interested in whether or not you can support your earlier assertion in a proactively made post to me specifically, with viable data. That's it.
I keep making the mistake of responding to posts rather than leaving. I promised cat I'd back up my point on Dassey and will link tomorrow but am not overtly compelled to post here considering the rampant frivolous petty reporting, trolling and irrelevance re netiquette. Besides so far despite Zellners thundering um tweets, I doubt if Avery is going anywhere anytime soon so for now it's all good.
So once I link later I doubt if you'll have to suffer my troublesome superior omnipotent persona much longer so chillax, have a cream soda and pm your friends to tell them you stuck up for them against the guy who said mean things about them.
Fair enough?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
tell them you stuck up for them against the guy who said mean things about them.not so much mean as totally delusional.. but its a fine line sometimes. share
Fair enough?
Well, yeah, pretty mean.
And groundless libel since he knows none of us here and bases his assessment on a few posts on a message board.
But delusional? I agree, totally.
Hi cat, I've found the transcripts with Dasseys statement re your query but am still not near my pc but promise to link soon as possible along with D.A comments on the issue. It's just occurred to me that I never got back to you re recordings being a mandatory requirement under law and I'll get back to you on that also. It simply slipped my mind and my apologies.
In the meantime may I ask you an honest question?
You quite rightly pointed out that courts do indeed get it wrong. In this specific case however, wouldn't it be fair to say that as well as the trial court getting it wrong, that the upheld conviction means that the higher court also got it wrong?
I'd appreciate your honest opinion on this ayc and after I get back with the links if you wish.
Cheers
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Hi cat, I've found the transcripts with Dasseys statement re your query but am still not near my pc but promise to link soon as possible along with D.A comments on the issue.
It's just occurred to me that I never got back to you re recordings being a mandatory requirement under law and I'll get back to you on that also. It simply slipped my mind and my apologies.
In the meantime may I ask you an honest question?
You quite rightly pointed out that courts do indeed get it wrong. In this specific case however, wouldn't it be fair to say that as well as the trial court getting it wrong, that the upheld conviction means that the higher court also got it wrong?
however, wasn't that also the case in the 1985 case, and sa had run out of appeals?
Who shot her?
He did.
How many times?
Twice.
And they had good reason to do so. There are three strong indicia that Dassey told the truth when he admitted to helping Avery. On February 28, 2006, the day before the March 1, 2006 confession, Wiegert received a lab report that lead had been detected on a defect found on skull bone fragments (193:55-56). Wierget suspected based on this report that Halbach had been shot (193:56). Dassey’s confession confirmed that Avery shot Halbach in the head (79:34:50). He further told Wiegert and Fassbender that Avery shot Halbach “about ten” times (79:34:60). This fit with the ten or eleven shell casings police found in their November searches (114:96). Dassey said Avery shot Halbach on the left side of her head (79:34:93). The forensic anthropologist “refit” three bone fragments together and determined they came from the left side of the (114:226-27; 116:78). And Dassey told Wiegert and Fassbender that Avery shot Halbach when they were in the garage (79:34:59). Police obtained a search warrant that same day (114:56; 117:25-26). The search of the garage yielded a bullet fragment embedded in the garage floor and a bullet under an air compressor (114:63-64). An analysis of a DNA sample from one bullet revealed Halbach as the source of the DNA (115:76). And that bullet had been fired from a rifle found in Avery’s bedroom ( 114:15-16, 197, 208-209)."
Here's a link to a document that gives an overview of the inconsistencies in Brendan's "confessions" and some of the language used by investigators to manipulate his statements:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Defendants-Memo-on-Brendan-Dassey-Statements.pdf
What else did he do to her? We know something else was done. Tell us,
and what else did you do? Come on. Something with the head. Brendan?
BRENDAN: Huh?
What else did you guys do, come on.
What he made you do Brendan, we know he made you do somethin’ else. Whatwasit? (pause) Whatwasit? We have the evidence Brendan, we just need you ta, ta be honest with us.
That he cut off her hair.
Hecutoffherhair? Inthehouse?
Mm huh.
Whydidhedothat? Wasshealive?
No.
What did he do with the hair?
He set it down on the counter.
The counter where?
Like a dresser.
What did he use to cut the hair off with?
The knife.
Wasshealive?
(Brendanshakeshead“no”)
Did he say why he did that?
No.
OK, what else?
What else was done to her head?
That he punched her.
Whatelse?(pause) Whatelse?
[…]
Cutherthroat? Te-whendidthathappen? Before he picked her off the bed?
So she was alive yet right?
(Brendan nods “yes”)
So she’s alive and you cut her throat?
Mm huh.
[…]
So Steve stabs her first and then you cut her neck?
(Brendan nods “yes”)
It’s extremely, extremely important you tell us this, for us to believe you. Come on Brendan, what else?
We know, we just need you to tell us.
That’s all I can remember.
Allright,I’mjustgonnacomeoutandaskyou. Whoshotherinthehead?
He did.
Then why didn’t you tell us that?
Cuz I couldn’t think of it.
Where did you shoot her?
In the head.
Who shot her?
He did.
How many times?
Twice.
Inherbodytooorwhereelse? (pause) Howmanytimesdoyoushoother
Twice.
Total? Not just in the head, (pause) Do you shoot her elsewhere?
In the stomach.
Where did you take her then?
Take her outside on the side ofthe garage and shoot her.
Take her outside ofthe garage and shoot her?
And where, where did he shoot her?
In the head, stomach, and the heart.
Do you know what side of the head?
(shakes head “no”) No.
thanks 4 locating transcript, cv, but seriously, you don't see huge problems w/this 'confession'??
No, I actually don't have problems overall with his confession, as I read it in its entirety, not segments. Nowhere do they mention a .22 nowhere do they say what side of the head or how many shots were fired, Dassey mentions the sweat and the dresser and that tires were used and the cellphone and several other things unprompted. I see no evidence of actual coercion during his questioning. No intimidation, they offer him food drink and bathroom breaks more than once.
Again the hair wasn't an issue nor does the law require absolute consistency in statements.
You made an interesting point to me re projection earlier that may well have merit.
Is it possible that you may feel sorry for Dassey? A slow kid, possibly bullied into things by a psychopath now faced with a long prison sentence?
Is it possible that your natural sympathy for Dassey due to his personal circumstances has you thinking that he was therefore coerced?
Such sympathy and subsequent concerns, as well as a recognition of how tragic on more than one level the case is, is very understandable. As I said, you strike me as decent and is why so far, I've a lot of time for you.
Only you know the answer to my question and I'm not actually expecting or necessarily looking for a reply.
But objectively and legally? Brendan Dassey wasn't coerced nor suffered any rights violations. Even if it doesn't sit right with you and if you have problems.
But not according to the law it isn't. Again one must not conflate one's personal criteria for evidence /issues with the standard legal criteria.
His confession within the context of supporting the warrant and being corroborated independently is pretty much enough to convict him and again, he confessed to his own mother anyway and she didn't coerce him.
I understand your sympathy though, for what it's worth and although you probably won't believe me, feel a degree of sympathy with him myself.
Ms Halbach gets priority though and sympathy for her and her family comes first, to me. Dassey has to pay for his crime even if I don't think he's anywhere near as bad as Avery. Justice demands it, sorry.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
as i've told u before, the very first thing i did was listen 2/watch or read all of brendan's interviews and interrogations, in chronological order. hardly segments; i was thorough. have you done this?
that was, however, 7 months ago, and it's a lot of material, so i don't recall all of it. not to mention trying 2 keep his multitude of stories straight.
sorry, but he absolutely was led, in many things. the worst of which was the investigator, out of frustration, saying 'ok, i'm going 2 come out and ask, who shot her in the head?' that was one of the very few things about her injuries they knew, to corroborate if a confession was true or not.
they repeatedly grilled and lead him on 'something about her head.' brendan is obviously trying 2 guess what they want him 2 say. uhh, that he punched her, choked her. nope, buzzer sound, wrong answers. what else, he's thinking, could u do 2 someone's head?? so he comes up with the wild guess that sa cut off her hair, w/a knife! wth??
but, again he got the buzzer, so they came out and told him she was shot in the head
he first said no, he didn't know which side of the head she was shot in, not that he didn't know. having just read this, i'd think u'd know that.
they weren't satisfied w/this, so grill him again on it, which cues him they think he got it wrong, so has 2 come up w/a different answer. they already told him she was shot on the side of her head, so the 'answer' can only be left or right. he has a 50/50 chance, so he guesses left, and hedges w/'i think.'
in fact, she was shot -- that we know of -- once in the back of her head, and once on the left side.
she's dead, she's alive, she was shot 2 times, no 3 times, no 10 times, and in the last interrogation, on may 13, where he was leaned on the hardest, 5 times. kratz kept that may 13 interrogation tape away from the jury, bc what brendan 'confessed' in it contradicted all the others, and LE/prosecution's narrative.
Cat,
Dassey mentions Ms Halbach being shot twice on page 64 (on my phone, might be different if you're on a pc.
He initially says he doesn't know which side but then says the left side on page 104 (on my phone anyway).
It's better to read the entire transcript though as it gives a better picture of Dassey knowing details he shouldn't, unprompted.
Cheers.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
No he really wasn't nor was the defence able to show how he was. You have issues personally with the questioning but that doesn't objectively equate to coercion.
Again, an admission against interest is evidence. Again, he confessed to his mother. Again, his statement is supported by evidence and yet again (and I'm genuinely sorry for repeating myself and not trying to come across as a smart ass), I agree with the court and jury, meaning that you're asking me to further validate what I already agree with, but you're offering me nothing new to change my agreement. Again, you're simply retreading what was already covered by a court of law that I agree with.
Again, if those who wish to make a case for Avery or Dassey, need to keep rehashing what was already covered in court, where the defence had plenty of opportunity to argue against such issues, then they don't have a case objectively. If they did, they wouldn't need to keep revisiting what the court already covered or raise issues that the court didn't see as issues, and by doing do, again and bottom line, they don't have an objectively valid, viable case to make.
We'll have to agree to disagree. He was not coerced in the legal objective sense of the word even if you really feel he was, sorry.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I'm responding to the content of Vile's post, rather than addressing him personally. He's decided to put me on ignore, but that shouldn't be taken as a gag order preventing giving an opinion on what he posts for public view.
You have issues personally with the questioning but that doesn't objectively equate to coercion.
I note that Vile regularly throws around the word "objectively" as a convenient rhetorical weapon. If he thinks something, that's objective. If a court sees something, that's objective. If the defense or someone reading those transcripts see something different, that's having "issues personally."
Rephrasing Vile, that he and the court didn't have issues with the questioning doesn't objectively equate to no coercion. In my view it equates to willful blindness.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
I think literally everyone other than corpus would agree with you.
shareRephrasing Vile, that he and the court didn't have issues with the questioning doesn't objectively equate to no coercion. In my view it equates to willful blindness
I'm responding to the content of Vile's post, rather than addressing him personally. He's decided to put me on ignore, but that shouldn't be taken as a gag order preventing giving an opinion on what he posts for public view.
It almost felt like at the end he didn't even know what he was arguing about. He just knew that he was mad.
Wow, the whole gang chimed in. I am half tempted to unblock them all and see what they said. I'm sure it would be life changing to read them all.
shareNo he really wasn't nor was the defence able to show how he was.
As suspects, individuals may:
not want their disability to be recognized (and try to cover it up)
not understand their rights but pretend to understand
not understand commands, instructions, etc.
be overwhelmed by police presence
act upset at being detained and/or try to run away
say what they think officers want to hear
have difficulty describing facts or details of offense
be the first to leave the scene of the crime, and the first to get caught
be confused about who is responsible for the crime and "confess" even though innocent
I agree with the court and jury, meaning that you're asking me to further validate what I already agree with, but you're offering me nothing new to change my agreement.
If someone replies "Not really" when asked if they had done something, that generally means they were involved in someway. It is especially true if we are talking about something very serious such as murder or rape.
Not really doesnt mean no in this instance.
if he were a normal kid, i might agree w/you, but he's an extremely introverted, socially awkward, mildly retarded kid, who also has certain peculiarities of speech, as do the rest of his family.
brendan often says 'not really' and 'and that' around family members -- people w/whom he's more comfortable. around people who intimidate him, authority figures, he says yes, no, i don't know.
sa, who is not intimidated by authority figures, doesn't do that. he's not at all introverted, socially awkward, nor retarded. but he too has peculiarities of speech, which may be familial, or even regional -- over by me, down by me, etc.
Not really doesnt mean no in this instance.
No I didn't, I have no need to add "In my opinion", as it isn't "my opinion", it's court established after the jury watched it and after the defence gave it their best shot at discrediting the confession.
You're actually making a case for coercion based on your opinion but not offering anything that the defence already tried.
But it isn't false, hence the reason it's supported by evidence and was good enough to secure a warrant against Avery, where all the evidence corroborating Dassey's confession was found to convict him.
Yes. When others stop rehashing what was already covered in court, stop raising irrelevancies that the court didn't consider an issue and actually provide solid evidence or a compelling case to back up their position, I'll stop pointing out that they're raising the due process and burden of proof bars based on their feelings and nothing more.
Actually I'm not and have asked umpteen times how the court erred. I haven't received any satisfactory answer, just "well hey courts get it wrong y'know", which is like saying "well hey, wrongful convictions happen y'know therefore Avery/Dassey/both are wrongfully convicted", which again is a fallacy.
71 is considered low normal. Dassey isn't special and doesn't get special treatment. He doesn't get to be considered mentally retarded, despite having a low normal IQ just because he's Brendan. He was not considered mentally reatarded, mildly or otherwise by the court of law whose reasoning and verdict I agree with, due to this, so I have no need to entertain it.
Yeah, I pretty much can as again he's low normal and there's njo evidence for coercion in his confession.
I provided the convo earlier with his mother and he confessed to his mother. You're engaging in contortionist logic here, due to your sympathy for him, imo, but either way are engaging in contortionist logic.
Yeah he was charged and convicted as it was against his interests to confess to that and an admission against interest is legally sufficient evidence to charge and convict someone with and again, Dassey isn't special and doesn't get special treatment just cuz he's Brendan.
If you think it's wrong that it should be sufficient is irrelevant and a completely separate issue but doesn't suddenly cease to become evidence against him, simply because one may personally find it insufficient.
None of his statement should be supported by evidence and absolute consistency isn't required by law, as I've already pointed out, so again this is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
Nothing to fall back on. Again, if your case was so strong you'd be rubbing my nose in all the empirical viable ways the court screwed up, but all you're doing is rinse repeat rehash, courts get it wrong, I don't like part x y z of a confession, what about the hair that the court didn't deem an issue, his IQ is low which equates to mentally retarded which equates to coercion etc etc.
Stuff that the court covered, nothing new to the table so I'm simply dismissing it and am perfectly validated in doing so seeing as there's an unwillingness or inability to state how the court erred or how Dassey was coerced.
So I've no need to even consider it or entertain it.
Again gimme something valid. Not your feelings.
I'm sorry for your injury but you don't have a case to make here nor does anyone else so far who seems to feel a miscarriage of justice occurred, so I think my posts would be too much effort to respond to anyway because of this also. And you don't like having your feelings dismissed, hence your sniping. I'm not interested in how biased or wrong you feel I am, but only if my agreement with the court can be refuted. Feelings are irrelevant. Feelings don't trump courts. Feelings are only good for making a case for how one passionately feels when arguing about stuff on the internet. Has zero use in a court of law with nothing to show for it and neither you nor anyone else who disagrees with the court has so far offered the slightest justification for your feelings so again, I can dismiss them.
Unless you or anyone else can back up your position with something that would trump the court, then I'm not interested. That's it.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
But it isn't false, hence the reason it's supported by evidence and was good enough to secure a warrant against Avery, where all the evidence corroborating Dassey's confession was found to convict him.
"Good enough." Mr. Objectivity seems unable to recognize a conclusion that exists in anticipation of its justification, at any cost. It's bad science, and it's bad jurisprudence.
More objective readers may be interested in learning something more about false confessions. I've read quite a bit of the scholarly literature. Here's Dassey's co-counselors, Laura Nirider and Steven Drizin, giving a lecture in April, 2016, to a law class on his case and the nature of false confessions:
Brendan Dassey: A True Story of A False Confession
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7jDf5wWdDQ
"These last clips, especially the ones with Barb and with Brendan, were never shown to the jury in this case. They never got an explanation from Brendan as to why he confessed in that moment, right after the police officers were finished. Where are we today? We've just taken you through the three errors that we see in all false confessions and taken you through the clips that we believe show they were present, and they controlled the outcome in Brendan's case. The court declined to suppress Brendan's confession -- the motion was brought by Len Kachinsy, his attorney -- we don't believe it was litigated very agressively by Mr. Kachinsky -- but again, during that motion to suppress, the tape was never played for the judge. He was convicted on the basis of his videotaped confession; the recantation was never shown to the jury, there was no expert testimony presented in this case to describe the phenomenon of false confessions -- no experts were presented even though Dean Strang and Jerry Buting had hired an expert to evaluate Brendan's confession, and that expert was ready to testify in the event that Brendan flipped and testified against Steven at his trial. That expert was ready to testify in Brendan's case. But his lawyers chose not to call him.Objective observers may also be interested to know what an experienced prosecutor has to say about the confession. One of the experts on the panel at the lecture was Robert Milan, Managing Director in the Chicago office of Stroz Friedberg:
The other things the lawyers did in their defence case - and they were much better lawyers than Len Kachinsky was, but they didn't know how to litigate a false confession case - never once played the tape in their case in brief. So the only time the jury saw the confession was when it was played straight through over three and a half hours from start to finish. And they never played that recantation. Unless you break it down in chunks for the jury, unless you show what we showed you today, that all gets lost in the minds and the eyes of the jury. You need to use the tape.
Yeah, from a prosecutor's perspective, you know Dr. Cavanagh and Laura and others can talk about the child's psychological issues and the demeanor as Laura pointed out and things that others look at, but from a prosecutor, the way I looked at a case, was corroboration. And to me, and I've taught this over and over again, but a confession is absolutely worthless unless you can corroborate it. I'll say it again: a confession is absolutely worthless unless it can be corroborated. And if you look at the Brendan Dassey case, there is zero corroboration, to back up that very, very weak confession he gave. The evidence that would've been left at that scene could not have been cleaned up by the sharpest individual, let alone Avery and Dassey. There is no way, they could have cleaned up all that blood. There is no way that there wouldn't have been marks left from shackles on the bed and everything else. There is no way that that young woman's hair wouldn't have been found in that trailer, or semen on the sheets of the bedding. Not a chance that those things wouldn't have been found. And the fact that there is zero physical evidence to corroborate a very, very weak and ridiculous confession taken by that young man should be enough for the Wisconsin prosecutors and the Wisconsin police to walk away from that case.From the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (where Nirider gave her address), which has taken on Dassey's case:
[Re: MAM] "I found myself screaming at the television, screaming at Mr. Kratz like the rest of you, and as I broke this thing down, this is how I looked at it. It started out with a conflict of interest. I mean how did this whole thing start going south? That they were wise enough to call in the Special Prosecutor - a moronic Special Prosecutor, but they brought in Special Prosecutor. But they weren't wise enough to keep the original cops out of this. So that's how this whole thing starts going sideways. Followed by Kratz's press conference regarding Mr. Dassey's confession, which was outrageous. Followed by the fact that Kratz commits a huge discovery violation by questioning Bobby Dassey during trial about a statement that the defense attorneys never heard about. Followed by the defense attorney for Brendan, Kachinsky, absolutely selling him out with the investigator. Followed by a series of rulings by the judge that were outrageous. One being no gag order: I mean why prosecutors and defense attorneys they're stepping up to cameras after every day at trial, is beyond me. And then followed by what I aleady mentioned, which was zero corroboration to substantiate the confession. This was more than a perfect storm; this was an absolute disaster."
"The media swarmed over the gruesome story like ants on a juicy piece of fruit— made all the more juicy, in this case, by the fact that Brendan’s uncle was Steven Avery, Wisconsin’s first DNA exoneree. If the story of Avery’s DNA-driven redemption had been trumpeted in the press, his apparent subsequent fall from grace was blared at top volume...The Innocence Project:
How should a defense practitioner proceed when confronted with a detailed confession like this one? The answer is simple. As Garrett notes, most false confessions nonetheless include largely correct statements about how the crime occurred due to contamination (p 20). Therefore, a defense practitioner must review the confession with an eye to answering one key question: was the client ever able to produce any verifiably true facts about the crime, absent contamination?
The first step in answering this question is to investigate the confession for potential contamination. Contamination usually arises out of fact-feeding by police, as Garrett identifies (p 28), but it can also result from a suspect’s exposure to media coverage, knowledge of community gossip or rumors about the case, and independent familiarity with the crime scene. Each of these sources should be investigated in turn.
Examining whether police fed facts to a suspect is a simple task that can be enormously fruitful—but it is not always possible. As Garrett emphasizes, the review of an interrogation for fact-feeding is almost impossible in the absence of an electronic recording of the interrogation in its entirety. He points out that many jurisdictions record only the suspect’s final statement, in which the suspect delivers a story of guilt in response to investigators’ open-ended questions (p 32)—a story that has often been rehearsed, sometimes for hours, before the recorder was turned on (p 32). Such recordings are not useful for the purpose of detecting contamination. Instead, it is essential to have a recording of the entire process of interrogation (pp 43, 247–48), including the all-important stage during which police extract a postadmission narrative account of how the crime unfolded. If the suspect cannot get the facts of the crime right during this stage, police tend to begin questioning him in a leading style, perhaps inadvertently and often out of frustration (pp 33–34). Those leading questions, however, feed the suspect facts about the crime that can be later parroted back (pp 33–34, 43–44). An inquiry into whether fact-feeding occurred, accordingly, requires a transcript of the interrogation and a close and careful hunt for leading questions.
While most contamination takes the form of fact-feeding, other sources of contamination should also be investigated. Whether a suspect could have learned facts about the crime from media coverage, of course, will only be a factor in relatively rare high- profile cases. In those cases, however, a defense practitioner should first learn the sources of media to which the client had been exposed in the time period between the crime and his confession; and he should make every effort to obtain copies of those news stories, whether in the form of television news transcripts, newspaper articles, blog postings, or police press releases. By reviewing those news stories, the practitioner will have an understanding of what information about the crime was public knowledge. Even where the suspect cannot point to particular media stories he himself viewed, the practitioner should nevertheless familiarize himself with all information that was in the public domain. Even if he cannot prove that the suspect read or viewed the source of media that publicized a particular fact, other people that the suspect may have known did. The information could have filtered back to the suspect through those sources.
The failure to record the interrogation process in its entirety has implications for trial. If an interrogation is unrecorded, then the interrogator is free to assert that crime facts were volunteered by the suspect, at which point the trial may well devolve into a swearing contest between the suspect and the interrogators concerning who was the true source of the details in the confession. If the entire process is recorded, however, then it may be possible to trace contamination where it exists.
Once all these sources of potential contamination have been identified, the practitioner will be well on his way to answering the key question: Was the client ever able to produce any verifiably true facts about the crime, absent contamination? To be able to answer that question completely, however, the practitioner must turn his attention to the matter of “fit.” Fit can be roughly defined as the degree to which the suspect’s narrative matches the provably true facts of the crime. It is a matter that, as previously referenced, preoccupies officers during interrogation, but it should concern defense practitioners even more. Police reports, crime scene photographs and videos, witness statements, and laboratory reports, of course, are all familiar sources of information concerning what can be objectively known about the crime itself.
As may be already clear, the sheer task of collecting and managing all the information that bears on this confession analysis can be daunting. It can be tempting to shortcut one’s task by identifying a few instances in which the confession narrative fits the crime scene facts and concluding that the confession must be true; it can be equally tempting to identify a few instances in which the suspect appeared to volunteer unprompted details during interrogation and conclude on that basis that the confession must be true. Such shortcuts, however, are mistakes—and indeed, as Garrett’s exposé makes clear, such mistakes play out in courtrooms across the country all too frequently.
Instead, a defense practitioner must cross-reference in a systematic and complete fashion the results of his investigation of contamination and fit. The best method for doing this is to create a chart that breaks down the confession, detail by painstaking detail, and sets forth (1) the sources of contamination for each detail, if any, and (2) the degree to which that detail can be corroborated by objective, physical evidence.
Brendan’s confession can be charted in this manner. His knowledge of certain details—the fact that the victim was shot in the head and the fact that her vehicle’s battery had been disconnected— is quite obviously the product of police fact-feeding, as can be discerned from a careful review of the transcript of his interrogation. His knowledge of other details, however, is not the product of fact-feeding. In fact, some of those details at first glance appear to be volunteered in response to open-ended questions.
On closer review, however, his knowledge of these other details can be traced to other sources of contamination. The media had widely publicized the fact that the victim’s SUV and incinerated remains had been found on Avery’s property, for instance. Brendan, who lived next door to his uncle, was also quite familiar with these facts from overhearing his own family’s discussions of the case as it unfolded. Even the fact that the SUV had been covered with branches had been well publicized. Further, Brendan was independently familiar with his uncle’s home, which he had visited many times before, so his ability to describe where his uncle kept the bleach — in the bathroom, a room likely to be seen by a visitor — again did nothing to confirm guilty knowledge. And on even closer examination, those few details that Brendan gave during his confession that are not traceable to any contamination at all prove to be incorrect or, at the least, unverifiable. Despite tearing Avery’s home apart, police never were able to come up with any physical evidence — no speck of DNA, no loose strand of hair, no trace of blood — establishing that the victim had been sexually assaulted, that her hair had been cut, or that she had been stabbed. The below table summarizes these findings.
When viewed in this comprehensive manner, it is plain that Brendan was not able to say anything provably correct about the crime absent the guiding hand of contamination. Such a result is a red flag of unreliability.
"Of course, a videotaped interrogation only benefits a defendant if it is used properly. Courts assess voluntariness when deciding whether a confession can be admitted into evidence, and the judge ruled that Dassey’s confession was voluntary and could be heard by jurors. However, the jury didn’t see the last hour and a half of the interrogation tape, including Dassey telling his mother during a break that “they got into my head,” which could have raised doubts about the credibility of his confession.
But at least there is an enduring record of what occurred during the interrogation, which may help Dassey in his appeals. (Dassey is now being represented by the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth.) Without video it would be his word against the interrogators. For example, we would have thought that Dassey brought up that Halbach was shot in the head, when it was really the police who first mentioned it.
While we may never know what really happened in this case, thanks to the videotape at least we know what happened during Dassey’s interrogation. This year the Innocence Project is working in several states to pass laws that would require police to record custodial interrogations, and you can help by telling your state representatives that you support this reform."
Debating CV is pointless and a complete waste of your time and intelligence.
Basically -- well, no actually -- he barricades himself with and behind the court -- the jury's -- decision. He demands that you "prove" the jury got it wrong. Impossible, of course, because juries don't even have to "prove" they got it right. The appellate court, which had the same judge, at least in Avery's case (unsure about Dassey's appeals) as the lower courts, upheld the decision. Willis upheld himself.
Corpus is not interested in any or all the questions you and others have so diligently and thoroughly raised about the evidence, or the admissibility of BD's confession -- it was admitted and that's enough for CV -- or whether or not BD was coerced or manipulated, because you can't "prove" it. Experts testifying that BD was, indeed, coerced and manipulated, mean nothing because the court -- meaning the judge -- did not allow Dr. White to testify, the jury didn't hear it, and so didn't consider it.
Corpus is a living (we assume) example of a closed mind. His motto could be "don't confuse me with facts; my mind is made up."
Which is why I continue to wonder what he is even doing here.
But it is as Dassey claimed that Avery shot Ms Halbach two or three times in the left side of the head, which is consistent with Ms Halbach's wounds.
Re the shooting, I already provided his full confession.
Catbooks, I'd like to expand on why I agree to disagree and why I feel we're making no headway here and further discussion on the issues you raise are futile, for me.
I agree with the court, meaning I agree with the verdict within the context of what was covered and what was deemed relevant and irrelevant.
The issues you raise were not considered relevant by the court, where the defendants had defence representation which had ample opportunity to state their case.
By focusing on issues that were not deemed relevant, you're essentially asking me to further validate my agreement with the court, by focusing on irrelevancies. Things which weren't considered issues where it mattered the most- Avery and Dassey's trials- yet are considered relevant to you.
I honestly don't see the point in doing that sorry, as again, it's important that one doesn't conflat6e one's personal criteria for proof, with the standard criteria for proof and that's what I feel you're doing and the issues you raise do not constitute an unsound conviction, certainly not a wrongful one or a violation of rights or due process.
Therefore I have no need to consider them sorry.
But I do respec6 your opinion and find you a thoughtful, sincere and nice person and am not denigrating you. I admire your sense of fairness but simply feel that your concerns which are important to you aren't empirically an issue.
To clarify I get your concerns- there are things that will always bother us about certain cases or issues. Niggling doubts, unanswered questions, head scratchers.
But again such things don't necessarily equate to what me might think they may mean and again certainly don't constitute RD or unfair process.
Anyway I reckon I'm done here and only popped by to visit.
I've enjoyed speaking to some of you and will most likely return when the case progresses with Zellner's appeal/claims/whatevs.
I wish to state again for the record that if Zellner's extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence has merit- if she has indeed got actual exonerating evidence proving factual innocence, as opposed to evidence that the investigation was flawed to the point where the conviction is overturned on a technicality or legal issue, then I will gladly place my hand on my heart and proclaim "I was wrong" because again nobody wishes for a miscarriage of justice here.
But if not then I stand by my position and will be back anyway just to see if Avery's fan club will still insist on innocence even if the appeal fails and evidence either fails to materialize or else won't be deemed worthy as evidence.
Cheers to you all.
Peace out.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
CV:
I agree with your position that those who are active in this debate are not going to be swayed, barring some blockbuster piece of verifiable evidence that proves conclusively that Avery did NOT kill Teresa Halbach.
If Zellner gets him off, the AIG group will see it as a guilty man getting away with murer. If it goes nowhere and his conviction remains intact, then the AWF group will see it as though law enforcement got away with a frame job.
Since that's the case, arguing over it is futile and pointless. Neither side is going to budge. So far, the "winning" side is only the side that has the court's decision to support their position (guilt). The losing side is hoping that his new attorney will be able to change that.
-----
Here's my latest film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/
I agree with your position that those who are active in this debate are not going to be swayed, barring some blockbuster piece of verifiable evidence that proves conclusively that Avery did NOT kill Teresa Halbach.
If Zellner gets him off, the AIG group will see it as a guilty man getting away with murer. If it goes nowhere and his conviction remains intact, then the AWF group will see it as though law enforcement got away with a frame job.
Since that's the case, arguing over it is futile and pointless. Neither side is going to budge.
Catbooks, I'd like to expand on why I agree to disagree and why I feel we're making no headway here and further discussion on the issues you raise are futile, for me.
I agree with the court, meaning I agree with the verdict within the context of what was covered and what was deemed relevant and irrelevant.
Sorry but if people didn't keep on rehashing what was already covered in court or raise things that weren't even considered issues by the court, then I wouldn't have to keep reiterating myself, in fairness as it would register with them the first time. And second. And all the other times it just doesn't seem to sink in with those who believe good old Stevie was railroaded and framed and is an all round innocent guy.
Bottom line- if people have to constantly repeat defence arguments, rehash what was already covered by a court of law and focus on what are ultimately irrelevant non-issues, then they don't have a case to make. If they did, their argument would be much more sound.
But they aren't sound because they don't have a case to make. If they did with any validity, I'd be fighting in their corner. But instead, they expect hypotheses of frame jobs to actually trump evidence submitted to a court of law, while disregarding the illogical conclusion- if a hypothesis can trump evidence to acquit or overturn then the flip side applies and a hypothesis can trump a lack of evidence to convict or deny exoneration when it's genuinely warranted.
Turn the imperfect system we already have into some topsy turvey exercise in sheer irrationality in other words, and again, nobody sane is gonna buy that, due to the implications being absolutely frickin nuts, seriously.
He's guilty as sin and this is an open and shut case in terms of evidence and people should be thinking of Theresa Halbach, whose only mistake was to come into contact with Steven Avery and that's all it took for her life to be brutally snuffed out at 26, the prime of any person's life.
To expect anyone rational to swallow the bs flavoured koolaid that Avery's supporters are trying to peddle is an insult to victims and I will not insult victims by lowering myself and sullying their memories and mocking their families pain by entertaining such tasteless crap unless I see some damn compelling evidence for it.
That's it.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Dassey's IQ is considered low normal.
You are kidding right? LOL...Dassey's confession is NOT supported by any forensic evidence because there is no confession! The police knew what supposed evidence they planted so they lead Dassey into it. Dassey's conviction was overturned today so........... Too funny!!
GUILTY
People who have never had money, "act a fool" when they are about to receive large chunks of money. Add that behavior with "I'm above the law and untouchable", plus his impulsive psychotic behavior...there is no one else in the world that could have killed her and left all of that evidence pointing to Steven. NO ONE
He's guilty and the verdict was the correct one with no room for reasonable doubt.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I have no idea if he did it or not. But a fair trial would probably clear up that confusion in a heartbeat. They clearly wanted (and needed) him to be guilty. What a stroke of luck to find bones and a car of a missing person on the property of the guy that is suing you.
shareWhat was unfair about the trial which convicted him for Theresa Halbach's murder? Specifically?
Why did his Defence not highlight this unfairness at his trial?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
What was unfair about the trial which convicted him for Theresa Halbach's murder?
Why did his Defence not highlight this unfairness at his trial?
Defence argued against the evidence to their heart's content and retained their own experts. Jury didn't buy it after examining the totality of the evidence.
Conflict of interest didn't occur.
I'm aware of what you said about not knowing if he was guilty or not, my interest was in your assertion that his trial was unfair.
You seem to think that his trial was objectively unfair because you don't agree with defence arguments being rejected or defence objections being overruled by the trial judge.
That's not a valid reason for citing an unfair trial.
So do you have any valid points as to how the trial was unfair, as in objectively valid, not your personal disagreement on some of the judge's decisions?
Were the appellate courts also being unfair when they rejected Avery's appeal? If so how was the appellate unfair? Precisely? Was that a conflict of interest too?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Conflict of interest didn't occur.
No it wasn't. If the defence argued this and had it rejected by the jury then you're essentially repeating an already rejected argument, seemingly thinking that repeating it on the internet will somehow give it more gravitas. It won't. It's simply repetition.
Not really it couldn't as even if he was paid 36 mil, he'd still be doing life without after being convicted at his fair trial by a jury of his peers.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
[deleted]
This is exhausting. I wish I had as much free time as you. (unless you are unemployed, then I don't wish that on myself)
There's many people who feel this case was "weird". That's kinda sorta the whole reason we're here posting.
You think he's guilty. Good on ya!
I am unsure. More than willing to admit his arrest looks "weird". More than willing to admit that I would not be shocked if he did do it.
Consider me Agnostic. If you want me to join your flock you'll have to do a lot better.
Not interested in your ad hominem whinging but only if you can validate your position with validity and I gotta be honest doggie, so far, it's not going to well for you in that regard.
Yeah, there are indeed many many people out there who have like feelings and stuff and how it just doesn't feel right that Steve Avery is a vicious and decidedly dangerous sexual predator convicted on overwhelming evidence so y'know the cops must have planted stuff and like framed him and stuff.
And as we all know "feelings" should supersede courts of law as when one has "feelings", then one doesn't need to point out how the court erred. Like you "feel" the judge was wrong to reject a defence argument as was the jury. Ergo the trial was unfair objectively cuz it feels right... right? Psychopaths like Steve Avery love people like you, doggie. Guess why.
Yet for someone so unsure, you sure do make a lot of noise about feelings, taker a piecemeal approach to a case and seem to think your personal disagreement with judges and juries equates to an unfair trial.
I consider you a defence lawyer's wet dream, doggie. Fwtw.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
think your personal disagreement with judges and juries equates to an unfair trial.kratz press conference pre trial denied the right to a fair trial. share
We're not allowed to talk about Kratz b/c Avery killed at cat in the 1980s.
But let's look at this statement from the poster (who isn't even relevant for me to go look up his name)
think your personal disagreement with judges and juries equates to an unfair trial.
Okay but that's really really stupid doggie as your personal disagreement doesn't equate to an objectively unfair trial and yet again I know I'm on your iggy list and my answer is just to highlight just how stupid your supposition is, for the benefit of others.
Your feelings don't count doggie, all that counts is whether or not you can objectively point out how the trial erred, Sherlock.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Lol no it didn't.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
kratz press conference pre trial denied the right to a fair trial.
whinging
The word is "whinging" and not "whining". The word whinge is pronounced "winj" and means to complain in an irritating or persistent way.
-----
Link to my latest film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/
mme is correct...it is a Brit word. But, guess what? It also means to WHINE!!
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
Like I said, people that weren't supposed to be there finding things. Right there is a conflict of interest.
Yeah, it wasn't just "they can be there and it's weird" it was "they aren't supposed to be there looking for things and they are finding things".
Notice the "know it all" didn't even mention the coroner being banned from the scene. I'm sure lots of "death scenes" ban the coroner. What the hell does a coroner know anyways, right?
It's unclear where he's getting his info.
Maybe from others of his persuasion, many of whom are also not well informed.
Notice the "know it all" didn't even mention the coroner being banned from the scene. I'm sure lots of "death scenes" ban the coroner. What the hell does a coroner know anyways, right?
I do not know if he is guilty or not.
I see a lot of people make that claim but then constantly express opinions about how SA could have been framed. […] Cognitive dissonance. I don't think I've ever seen you concede any of the many, many points that suggest his guilt. Maybe you don't know if he is guilty or not, but you definitely lean heavily to one side.
Why can't a person be uncertain of SA guilt, yet also believe he was framed? Is it possible to have reasonable doubt regarding guilt or innocence, but at the same time believe the trial was unfair? Perhaps a person feels there were too many unanswered questions at trial. To begin with the jury pool has a bias against a known low life, trouble maker, or has a record, so due to the DA trying the case in the press the verdict has to be guilty as charged.
He's guilty and it doesn't matter how or why LE came to the conclusion for him to be arrested. It doesn't matter how or why the DA charged him for the crime. He's no good and he needs to be taken off the streets. He burned a cat alive (makes my stomach turn), he's an ex-felon so he has to be guilty. I can't be sure LE did or did not help things along, but no matter. And those damnable unanswered questions....the DA either didn't prove or bring forth at trial some of his assertions he made to the press...but, what the hell, SA is off the streets.....
I can't tell you how many times my response to someone being exonerated for a crime has been...and rather piously...." Well, he just spent time for the crimes they didn't catch him for!"
Then came the West Memphis Three (they took the Alford Plea so would that be "cognitive dissonance?)
The Central Park Jogger Defendants,
and then Steven Avery in 1985.
We also have the over zealous DA's continuing to charge and try in the press...the Duke University players, the Baltimore Police Officers, et al
I can't recall whether it was Buting or Strang who stated "Once you're charged...you lose."
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
To begin with the jury pool has a bias against a known low life, trouble maker, or has a record, so due to the DA trying the case in the press the verdict has to be guilty as charged.
No the jury was wrong.
The cops were wrong.
The lawyers were wrong.
The forensic team was wrong
The jury was wrong
The judges were wrong.
Everyone and everything else was all wrong and were all wrong because Stevie n Bren were railroaded and that's all there is to it cuz wrongful convictions happen ergo happened here just like in The Shawshank Redemption, forever and ever Amen...
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Thanks for that info. Very interesting, but the last paragraph of the first comment sort of sums up how I feel. This was a sensational trial and there are prospective jurors who would give their eye teeth to be sworn. I, myself, would do everything I could NOT to be sworn for such a case as this. The one juror who should have been struck was the volunteer for and had a relationship to MCSO. If I'm not mistaken that would be reason to challenge in Florida. Maybe it's different in WI.
To be honest, I am one of those who would like to see a new trial....there's just something not right or complete about the previous trial. Because of this I'm a fence straddler to his guilt. This is why I would hope Zellner petitions for a new trial with a change of venue. I don't want him exonerated outright. Even if I was paneled and knowing then what I know now what sort of person he was (I'm sure that community was fully aware of his reputation....reason for a change of venue) I would have been biased against him. We can tell ourselves we can be objective, but can we really?
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
We can tell ourselves we can be objective, but can we really?
We can objectively evaluate the evidence
Of course people say that all the time in support of their own evaluations. It's also routine to discover they overestimated their objectivity, and that the evidence was neither complete nor impeccable.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
as having a higher probative value than guilt.
We can objectively evaluate the evidence
You think that all the things I mentioned have a more probable chance of occurring than the evidence indicating guilt due to Avery and Dassey being guilty. I don't. That's where we differ.
No the more one works backwards from a belief in innocence and railroading that was implanted due to a Netflix doco and the more allowances one makes for this belief, the more mental gymnastics one engages in, the mire one contorts and pretzels their logic past any degree of credibility, then yeah the more subjective it becomes cuz hey- Netflix.
No people objectively evaluate evidence all the time, it's why cops arrest people and evidence gets objectively examined also at trials and juries at trials come to verdicts after the evidence is objectively examined and both prosecuting and defence arguments are presented to them and in Avery's case the verdict was guilty due to overwhelming evidence and he's where he belongs.
Has it ever occurred to you that his various defence teams couldn't make a case for innocence because he's so damn guilty and the evidence is so overwhelming that guilt is the only logical reasonable conclusion after the evidence was objectively examined?
No. Once you get an idea in your head then that's how it happened facts and evidence be damned.
And predatory low lives the world over rejoice at your gullibility.
We're not going to make any headway here mme or change each others minds so feel free to have the last word here.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
the more one contorts and pretzels their logic past any degree of credibility, then yeah the more subjective it becomes cuz hey- Netflix.
Great post and 100% agreed.
The sheer concentration of anomalies that would have to have occurred is wildly, extremely improbable to say the very least.
It just makes me sad. Look, I thought he was innocent immediately after the documentary. I feel like an idiot but I admit I believed that. But how can any person after reviewing all of the evidence and seeing that the blood vial was a complete red herring (literally red) continue to believe in his innocence?
No people objectively evaluate evidence all the time, it's why cops arrest people and evidence gets objectively examined also at trials and juries at trials come to verdicts after the evidence is objectively examined and both prosecuting and defence arguments are presented to them and in Avery's case the verdict was guilty due to overwhelming evidence and he's where he belongs.
Every jury member, no matter how stringently he tries to abide by his oath, brings his own subjective experience, knowledge, beliefs, feelings, to the table.
We have a trial by jury system. If you have a better system, I'm all ears...
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
It was enough to convict beyond all reasonable doubt and that's the bottom line. Apart from speculation, hypotheses and theorem I have seen no compelling evidence that Avery was wrongfully convicted for Ms Halbach's murder. I have seen no evidence of an unfair trial and no evidence of coercion or corruption.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I have seen no compelling evidence that Avery was wrongfully convicted for Ms Halbach's murder. I have seen no evidence of an unfair trial and no evidence of coercion or corruption.
Yeah also the courts opinion hence the reason Avery's doing life without parole and hence the reason his conviction was upheld.
When you come up with any evidence to back up your theories lemme know.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Hey, no argument from me....(for a change).
The jury's opinion, actually.
But he is indeed doing life w/o parole.
I don't have any theories (no matter what Jeff says).
Just questions, doubts, criticism of the investigation and certain principals involved in it.
Nope. Court's opinion as well when they upheld his conviction, remember? Which he's serving life with parole for? Oops, did I say life with parole? Cuz I meant life without the slightest possibility of parole, my bad. But hey maybe he'll get clemency... in the year 2056.
Yeah you do, you've nothing but theories with nothing to back them up, hence the reason Jeff (who from our brief exchanges, seems quite fair minded and reasonable to me btw) ended up putting you on ignore and hence the reason I'm not gonna bother with you any more as you're expecting me and everyone else to go along with your theories and give them more gravitas than actual submitted evidence and that's never gonna happen mme, not from normal rational reasonable people anyway.
You should be shilling for Adnan Syed instead. At least he might get a retrial, assuming the prosecution appeal isn't successful. I betcha think he's innocent too.
Like I said predatory low lives rejoice at your gullibility.
'bye.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I don't have any theories (no matter what Jeff says).
Just questions, doubts, criticism of the investigation and certain principals involved in it.
///
But no questions, doubts, criticisms of SA, instead defenses, sometimes to to point of absurdity. That's the problem, that's why some think you, doggie, sltc, and Ksp are "truthers,"
The reality is you all think LE framed SA, and that he may or may not be guilty on top of that, which would be fine if that's what you said, but you don't say that. Why not just come out and say it, be honest?
Oh Good Grief! I don't give a rat's patooty what they think what I think! If you can't ask questions without them screaming the "T" word ( I refuse to use the stupid "T" and "G" words) what is the point of a board? I've said many times...WE ARE NOT BORG! We have different perspectives. You may be correct, but you may be incorrect, also. And, I refuse to be a Minion!!
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
It's not a matter of simply asking questions, and I think you have to know that, Ksp. I don't like the "truther/guilter" nomenclature either, and if I use them, it's in quotes.
But what is the point of only putting one side under a microscope and questioning only it? Not a quest for truth, that's for sure.
PS I have no clue where the minion thing is coming from. Has anyone said they think you're a minion??
It's only because the hateful SAIG crowd haven't thought to refer to me as a "minion"= stooge! I am on a quest for the truth so I'm still waiting for answers to my revised questions posted.
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
SAIG crowd, you mean on Reddit, here, or both? Reality is there are some hateful people on both sides of fence. Or I should say, people exhibiting hateful behavior. No way for me to know if they themselves are hateful.
What revised questions? Which thread? Not that I make any claim to know answers, except on things known to be facts.
We can objectively evaluate the evidence
Of course people say that all the time in support of their own evaluations. It's also routine to discover they overestimated their objectivity, and that the evidence was neither complete nor impeccable.
I don't think you merely do that, no. In reading posts on this board, you, like others, use relatively emotional language. I've noticed that you sometimes tend to get very personal, even nearing a point of spite. When I come across this style of communication it prompts a measure of doubt about the person's ability to see as objectively as they insist they do.
A recent post of yours revealed that there is an irrational basis driving your views:
"If his conviction is overturned then it's just another case of innocence fraud out of control..."That is baldly saying that no matter what evidence is brought by the defence, if a judge and jury overturn SA's conviction, you will not accept it. Such a statement is irrefutable evidence of prejudice, contradicting the claim of objectivity.
"But what I think is really very common is people saying: 'Well, regardless of what I feel about his guilt or innocence, this isn't the way I thought the system was supposed to work. I see some dark corners in our system here and some things that strike me as wrong or, at minimum, just very questionable.'"I don't know if you are more right than others. You may well be. But your claim of objectivity is dubious.
I don't think you merely do that, no. In reading posts on this board, you, like others, use relatively emotional language. I've noticed that you sometimes tend to get very personal, even nearing a point of spite. When I come across this style of communication it prompts a measure of doubt about the person's ability to see as objectively as they insist they do.
That is baldly saying that no matter what evidence is brought by the defence, if a judge and jury overturn SA's conviction, you will not accept it. Such a statement is irrefutable evidence of prejudice, contradicting the claim of objectivity.
Zelners clearly full of it but if some smoking gun evidence is produced which actually proves factual innocence leading to a straight up exoneration then I will fully acknowledge how wrong I was.
Citing the conviction does back up the opinion that SA is guilty. However, this form of backing up doesn't necessarily negate all arguments that cast doubt on the veracity of the evidence the court and jury evaluated, the way it was presented, additional or omitted evidence, etc. Clearly Kathleen Zellner doesn't think so. Moreover, courts and juries are not necessarily objective themselves.
Dean Strang:
"But what I think is really very common is people saying: 'Well, regardless of what I feel about his guilt or innocence, this isn't the way I thought the system was supposed to work. I see some dark corners in our system here and some things that strike me as wrong or, at minimum, just very questionable.'"
my personal style... is in no way relative to my objective evaluation of the evidence
In my experience, when a person's style of communiction is often emotional, extending to personal invective, that lack of control almost always betrays the significant influence of emotion in the thought process itself.
I was saying that within the context of the case so far as in the evidence presented and the conviction.
Implied in the context of an imagined judge and jury's evaluation of an appeal case is the possibility of further evidence than that already presented.
You've quoted yourself claiming that "Zellner is clearly full of it." So again, it's only reasonable to find "clear" that you've judged in advance of evaluation. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence demonstrating that you are significantly influenced by emotion, and are not objective, as you claim to be.
if the objections are essentially rehashing what was covered in court
Well, those are your words for it, and you have an emotional investment in saying so. You may be right, or more right than others, but given the evident bias I think it's reasonable to take your characterizations with some dose of skepticism.
If you think there's a better system
A system can often be made better; I certainly haven't called for a replacement. The assumption underlying your statement is that the system operated sufficiently well. I think this case puts that in some doubt. What I think, like Strang, is that the system isn't perfect, and that it may be operating significantly less than perfectly in this instance. That is why I entertain the remarks of a defence lawyer after the conviction. I don't have skin in the game, so I'm not willing to dismiss Strang's comments out of hand.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
But regardless of my persona I still have instances of fact- in this case the independent verdict of the jury and Avery's incarceration and status as a murderer to support my contention making your point moot. I'm not required to further validate my position. Those who oppose the verdict are and with something that trump's the court's reasoning and the convicting evidence.
A jury doesn't sit at an appellate court in the U.S., nor does it usually review evidence but on points of law, that is if the trial proceeded correctly.
A US appellate also only covers issues contented at the trial, not new arguments/theories mooted after afaik. Not 100% certain on all of this but again afaik, which is why I'm somewhat dubious about Zellner's claims.
No, see my earlier comments on exoneration and smoking gun evidence, this has already been covered. You can either accept my comments or not, doesn't nullify them though.
Yeah possibility but where is it? This possible additional omitted evidence that Zellner seems to need an extra 90 days for?
Why should I entertain claims at present with nothing to show for them such as tsunamis of exonerating evidence? If they're just claims at present? How does a claim supersede evidence at present?
Yeah again within the context of the present status of the case including the overwhelming evidence, conviction and Zellner's 90 day delay, to me she's clearly full of it, thundering in a high profile case as defence lawyers are prone to do.
If she proves me wrong with actual evidence for exoneration then great - nobody wants a miscarriage of justice.
But so far I feel my comment regarding her credibility is valid, again contextually speaking.
Sorry no, I'm only going by what people post. You yourself quoted a former defence lawyer for Avery who couldn't make a case for innocence or even RD when it counted and where he had ample opportunity to argue to his heart's content, as if I should give what he says sudden gravitas when he already failed.
Defence arguments already rejected by the court repeated on forums as if it'll stick this time and it's akin to proof by assertion and such things don't need to be entertained as they were already covered, sorry.
Well you seem to think that your personal subjective concerns re juries somehow equates to an objectively valid reason for citing how Avery suffered some form of objective unfairness, which is why I inquired about your potential citing of some better improved system.
But fair enough. Again though your personal concerns don't mean his trial by jury was unfair in an empirical sense, so your argument holds no water.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I still have instances of fact- in this case the independent verdict of the jury and Avery's incarceration and status as a murderer to support my contention making your point moot
My point doesn't go simply to instances of facts themselves, but to how you think about them. Specifically, your interpretation and integration of various "instances of fact" into a meaningful whole from which your draw a particular conclusion. Now, your conclusion may well be the correct one, and it does match the jury's, but the point is that it's inaccurate to say that you are an objective observer.
Note: this has nothing to do with correctness. Experience tells us that subjectivity isn't necessarily an impediment to reaching just conclusions in law, or breakthroughs in science, two arenas where objectivity is supposedly paramount.
While Appellate courts are formally bound to examining only the record for evidence of errors in lower courts in applying the law, introduction of new evidence does informally make its way to judges' attention through briefs which meanwhile address errors of law. The two are often related. One example of an error in law would be admitting improper evidence, which opens the door to mentioning the proper evidence. Appellate courts don't typically comment on their exposure to the existence of new evidence.
My remarks about the degree of your objectivity weren't intended to "nullify" any of your comments. Since the content of your posts shows that emotion is influential on your thought process, you are likely to be less than objective in your review. This lack of objectivity doesn't "nullify" your comments, but gives good reason to treat them with a healthy dose of scepticism.
I'm only going by what people post
You use words like "only" and "merely" to describe what you do, as if you aren't in fact intepreting and characterizing. "Only going by" is pretending that interpretation and characterizatiion of what was said is actually the same as what is actually said. As if your mind is somehow neutral. Virgin material in, and your mind preserves it intact. This is highly unlikely, given the emotional quality of many of your posts.
as if I should give what he says sudden gravitas when he already failed
What you did right there is an excellent example of how the argument of neutrality, of "only going by," is pretence. First, you exaggerated what was said in order to have an easier time squashing it. Because I didn't say that you should give it "gravitas," but in fact deliberately used your own word in saying I was willing to "entertain" his remarks. "Gravitas" is a far stronger meaning than I meant. Your altering that meaning is more evidence that you are not objective. Second, Strang's quoted comments weren't "arguments already rejected by the court." He in fact made no argument at all: he said he thinks there is a common theme in people's comments related to flaws in the justice system.
Now, there's nothing unusual about a misintepretation, or exaggerating someone's meaning. But it doesn't suggest "only going by," as if the receiving mind is neutral, an objective observer.
you seem to think that your personal subjective concerns re juries somehow equates to an objectively valid reason for citing how Avery suffered some form of objective unfairness... our personal concerns don't mean his trial by jury was unfair in an empirical sense, so your argument holds no water.
What doesn't hold water is that attribution, since I don't think anything like that, which is why I haven't even implied it. I haven't cited how SA suffered some form of objective unfairness. I have no idea if he did or didn't, so my awareness that judges and juries aren't necessarily objective can't be equated with "he did."
I mentioned that "concern," among other context, to distinguish my approach from yours: in reviewing the case I don't weight the conviction so absolutely that it necessarily negates all other context presented, and that potentially to come. I'm keeping an open mind. Part of that openness includes awareness that people are only human, that honest mistakes can be made, that the justice system is not perfect, that there may be new evidence, and so on. Openness doesn't mean that I believe one way or the other about SA suffering unfairness.
I've argued that you're not objective, but that's no reason to assume -- to equate it with -- an argument that SA was treated unfairly and is innocent.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Irrelevant how I think of them but only what the jury thought of them after all arguments were heard. Point being my position, regardless of how you think I evaluated the evidence (due to apparently not liking my personal style) is nonetheless supported by an independent body.
No it isn't, as I happen to know whether or not I'm objectively evaluating evidence by virtue of the fact that I'm the one objectively evaluating it.
After objectively evaluating it, I agree with the court and jury.
Note: this has nothing to do with correctness. Experience tells us that subjectivity isn't necessarily an impediment to reaching just conclusions in law, or breakthroughs in science, two arenas where objectivity is supposedly paramount.
While Appellate courts are formally bound to examining only the record for evidence of errors in lower courts in applying the law, introduction of new evidence does informally make its way to judges' attention through briefs which meanwhile address errors of law. The two are often related. One example of an error in law would be admitting improper evidence, which opens the door to mentioning the proper evidence. Appellate courts don't typically comment on their exposure to the existence of new evidence.
My remarks about the degree of your objectivity weren't intended to "nullify" any of your comments. Since the content of your posts shows that emotion is influential on your thought process, you are likely to be less than objective in your review. This lack of objectivity doesn't "nullify" your comments, but gives good reason to treat them with a healthy dose of scepticism.
"Only going by" is pretending that interpretation and characterizatiion of what was said is actually the same as what is actually said. As if your mind is somehow neutral. Virgin material in, and your mind preserves it intact. This is highly unlikely, given the emotional quality of many of your posts.
What you did right there is an excellent example of how the argument of neutrality, of "only going by," is pretence. First, you exaggerated what was said in order to have an easier time squashing it. Because I didn't say that you should give it "gravitas," but in fact deliberately used your own word in saying I was willing to "entertain" his remarks. "Gravitas" is a far stronger meaning than I meant. Your altering that meaning is more evidence that you are not objective. Second, Strang's quoted comments weren't "arguments already rejected by the court." He in fact made no argument at all: he said he thinks there is a common theme in people's comments related to flaws in the justice system.
What doesn't hold water is that attribution, since I don't think anything like that, which is why I haven't even implied it. I haven't cited how SA suffered some form of objective unfairness. I have no idea if he did or didn't, so my awareness that judges and juries aren't necessarily objective can't be equated with "he did."
I mentioned that "concern," among other context, to distinguish my approach from yours: in reviewing the case I don't weight the conviction so absolutely that it necessarily negates all other context presented, and that potentially to come.
I'm keeping an open mind.
Part of that openness includes awareness that people are only human
that honest mistakes can be made
that the justice system is not perfect
that there may be new evidence
and so on
Openness doesn't mean that I believe one way or the other about SA suffering unfairness.
Nothing to do with not liking a style, everything to do with recognizing that style is a good way to tell how close someone is to objectivity.
I happen to know whether or not I'm objectively evaluating evidence by virtue of the fact that I'm the one objectively evaluating it.
Sorry, but LOL. This is blatant circular reasoning, a convenient fallacy. The premise of the argument -- that you know-- lacks as much evidence as its conclusion -- that you're objective. Of course no truly objective observer would use this tactic.
Same thing with this one:
So when I said what I said about exonerating evidence, I was lying when I said it and what's more took the trouble to post the lie, when I just as easily could've... not said anything at all in this regard.
That's totally irrational. Nothing I've said implies such a thing.
Requests for delays are common. There are a myriad of potential reasons. The fact of a request for a delay does not imply "b.s." That is another sign of a lack of objectivity.
in a really really simplistic version, when you strip away everything
A really simplistic version is another convenience; it can be used to bolster any argument. Which is why it's a form of cheating. "Stripping away everything" renders any example meaningless, so it should be set aside.
whether it's an impediment or not is irrelevant
An impediment to one's ability or wiliingness to objectively interpret evidence and consider context is relevant to the claim of objectivity. Specifically, it puts that claim in doubt.
So the exonerating evidence is the admission of improper evidence...?
Again, mischaracterization of what was said. I don't know what the exonerating evidence is, which is why I didn't mention or imply it. What I actually saId was "One example of an error in law..." That is not necessarily saying "This was the error in law." To be objective, you need to be able to watch out that you don't interpret conveniently, putting conclusions in people's mouths.
Same thing here:
Now you're having a go at my use of the word gravitas and making out it's some weird Machiavellian attempt at subterfuge or deception or... something?
I'm making a distinction between the meaning of words -- the one I used, and the one you used to paraphrase me. I was overt about what I think this indicates, namely that it exaggerated what was said, which happens to make an objection easier, and that such altering of meaning is more evidence of a lack of objectivity. So it's odd that you would still be unclear.
what are you banging on about the potential subjectivity of jurors for
Actually it's been you who have repeatedly challenged its first mention, which was last among several points related to the idea that the fact of a verdict doesn't necessarily negate all arguments which might cast doubt on the veracity of evidence the court and jury evaluated. I certainly didn't intend to emphasize it. It seems to be emphasized because I've replied to your repeated mention of it.
If you don't think it equates to objective unfairness then why even mention it
I mentioned it as one of a few reasons to keep an open mind, in the spirit of objectivity. It's ironic that this purpose doesn't occur to you, that you instead assume it must indicate support for the view that SA was treated unfairly.
nor provide anything of substance to say how the court objectively screwed up to validate your position of not weighing the conviction absolutely
I'm still in the process of reading about the case. However, given there's an appeal I think the objective approach is to keep an open mind and not assume the conviction is necessarily unimpeachable. "Necessarily."
Yet Avery's supporters seem to think that...
I don't know about out-and-out supporters, but I would advise against equating expressions of scepticism of the evidence, and/or interest in new evidence, with "supporting." I would add that since you have mischaracterized what I've said in a relatively uncomplicated exchange, I'm inclined to take your analysis of what people "seem to think" with regard to far more complex context with a grain of salt.
Anyone else who disagrees needs to back it up with objective validity
It's entirely possible to wonder, to have a measure of doubt, without necessarily disagreeing. A lot of people take that position. From what I've read so far I think there are oddities, question marks, on both sides. To me, this is what makes the case interesting.
Since you've offered me the last word, I'll note that the gradual increase of emoticons and written sarcasm in your replies betrays some pretty intense emotion that has started to come out. If history serves, typically the next stage is ad hominem, so I think it's the perfect juncture to end our exchange.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Seriously.....my hero!
shareYeah... Changed my mind about letting you have the last word as this is just too good to pass up.
Nothing to do with not liking a style, everything to do with recognizing that style is a good way to tell how close someone is to objectivity.
Sorry, but LOL. This is blatant circular reasoning, a convenient fallacy. The premise of the argument -- that you know-- lacks as much evidence as its conclusion -- that you're objective. Of course no truly objective observer would use this tactic.
Same thing with this one:
So when I said what I said about exonerating evidence, I was lying when I said it and what's more took the trouble to post the lie, when I just as easily could've... not said anything at all in this regard.
That's totally irrational. Nothing I've said implies such a thing.
Feel free to have the last word as I said I was done here and don't wish to get dragged back into here again via replies.
Apparently unless the replies are "too good." Your courage is evidently not up to your convictions.
Changed my mind about letting you have the last word
Revealng that you can't be trusted to keep your word. This is a problem of integrity, not objectivity.
as this is just too good to pass up
When you publicly give someone the last word but you find that last word too good, you can't save face by replying.
Show me how I'm wrong.
You keep missing the point, though I've made it clear, multiple times, in plain English. Since my point has always been modest, never claiming you're wrong, there is no onus on me to show you how you're wrong. For example:
- "When I come across this style of communication it prompts a measure of doubt about the person's ability to see as objectively as they insist they do."
- "I don't know if you are more right than others. You may well be. But your claim of objectivity is dubious."
- "You may be right, or more right than others, but given the evident bias I think it's reasonable to take your characterizations with some dose of skepticism."
- "Your evident lack of objectivity gives good reason to treat your comments with a healthy dose of scepticism."
- "Your conclusion may well be the correct one, and it does match the jury's, but the point is that it's inaccurate to say that you are an objective observer."
- "Note: this has nothing to do with correctness. Experience tells us that subjectivity isn't necessarily an impediment to reaching just conclusions in law, or breakthroughs in science, two arenas where objectivity is supposedly paramount."
I also said that given there is an appeal, I think the objective approach is to keep an open mind and not assume the conviction is necessarily unimpeachable. And that it's entirely possible to wonder, to have a measure of doubt, without necessarily disagreeing.
I'm not interested in how you feel about... my evaluation of evidence
An astonishing admission of a closed mind. Taken with your increasingly hyperbolic approach, this isn't simply a lack of objectivity. A public forum isn't meant to be an echo chamber. No wonder you can't handle giving someone the last word.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
To Whatlarks:
The George Bernard Shaw quote seems apropos here.
Also, akin to taking a peashooter to a cannon fight.
Apparently unle *rest of irrelevant waffle snipped*
Earlier you said "I'm pretty much finished my visit here." It's looking more and more like permanent residency.
Adding even more replies after publicly giving someone the last word is just re-shooting your own foot.
When the gunsmoke clears, I would encourage you to actually read the modest point you've missed and/or evaded, summarized in my last post. There's no onus on me to show you how you're wrong, since I've never stated or even implied that you are. I've even said that you may well be right, or more right than others.
In fact, you agreed that my sceptical approach was reasonable, given your evident bias: "Yes. Absolutely. Damn straight. Do not at all take my word for this as I'm merely a bloke on the internet. Do your own research."
There's no sin in being found less objective than you'd like to think, just as we both agree it's okay to take biased comments with a measure of scepticism. There's really no need for you to be in such a flap.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Okay, thanks for that.
Anyway, when you have a moment and if it's not too much trouble could you answer some questions for me?
1) Have you any evidence or a credible plausible alternative explanation for the overwhelming evidence against Steven Avery, which gives a credible case for innocence? As in evidence or explanations- credible ones- that the court didn't cover already? Things which the court didn't actually consider issues will not be considered.
2) Do you have any evidence that Avery was framed?
3) Do you have any evidence of Avery's trial or due process being objectively unfair or flawed?
It's just that you seem to have missed them the first time around is all. And the second time too actually. I mean if the answer is "no" to all of them then that's totally Kool & the Gang as you're entitled to your opinion and open minded approach.
However if that's the case then I'm equally entitled to reject your position on the grounds that you haven't provided any evidence to back it up whereas I have a court of law's verdict, established fact.
But if the answer is "why yes Corpus I do and here it is right here", then that's equally cool, I'll objectively evaluate it and if it has merit, will happily reconsider my position on the matter, and show you the merit of your open minded philosophy to boot. Fair enough?
So, ya reckon you can answer my questions when you have a minute?
Cheers whatlark, appreciated mate.
(It's just that if you keep refusing to answer three very plainly put questions asking for evidence for reconsideration to be provided, then some of the more cynical people reading our exchange may just possibly feel that you're being evasive is all. I'm not one of those potential cynics though and know you'll answer them to the best of your abilities so whenever you're ready mate.)
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
It must be exhausting constantly demanding that people prove you’re wrong whenever they haven't said or even implied it.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Ah, I was waiting for this, the old "hey I got no opinion one way or the other brah" approach.
Why are you even engaging with me so, if that's the case? If my agreement with the court is flawed, then show me evidence how the court erred, otherwise you're essentially saying that I'm agreeing with the court because I'm closed minded, personally and again I've no interest in your feelings about me.
You saw fit to attack me and attempt to somehow in your garbled semi opaque manner imply that my position was flawed, albeit by attacking me instead of my position. I asked you to provide evidence that my position was flawed. You refused to do so, refused some more and now here you are with your deeply boring neutrality schtick.
You think that my evaluation is flawed, yet disregard that I ask you to provide evidence which would make me reconsider. You also disregard that I fully suggested you not to take my word for things and check out the primary sources yourself.
Now if my position is flawed then answer the questions, troll. That you lack the awareness to see that my asking you questions that would make me reconsider my position shows how I actually am being open minded is hilarious.
Here they are one more time.
1) Have you any evidence or a credible plausible alternative explanation for the overwhelming evidence against Steven Avery, which gives a credible case for innocence? As in evidence or explanations- credible ones- that the court didn't cover already? Things which the court didn't actually consider issues will not be considered.
2) Do you have any evidence that Avery was framed?
3) Do you have any evidence of Avery's trial or due process being objectively unfair or flawed?
If you cannot provide the evidence to refute my position then your position doesn't need to be entertained as you have nothing objective to show for them, just your feelings. And I can dismiss your feelings on the grounds that they're nothing but feelings. That's it.
But if you can't answer then have the integrity and decency to admit it. To simply say that you're not as familiar with the case as you'd like to be but feel that maybe there's something to Avery's innocence or an unfair trial or a frame up as that's a normal honest human response to give. I in turn will simply again advise you to research the primary sources yourself.
But I'm not interested in your trolling so either answer the questions or else man up. If you're too cowardly to do either of those things then stop responding to me as I'm only interested in compelling evidence that would make me reconsider my position and nothing else.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
It's odd that you'd be "waiting" for a neutral position, since I've overtly declared it, in plain English. For example, "I haven't cited how SA suffered some form of objective unfairness. I have no idea if he did or didn't." Or, "I don't know if you are more right than others. You may well be."
You've claimed that "Zellner is clearly full of it," without knowing anything about her appeal case. You've said "If his conviction is overturned then it's just another case of innocence fraud out of control," which is baldly saying that no matter what evidence is brought by the defence, if a judge and jury overturn SA's conviction you will not accept it. Yet you accuse others of going by feelings, and make yourself out to be objective.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Okay, you clearly have some weird obsession with me personally.
I already explained to you the context of that remark very much within the present status of the case. You're willfully disregarding that, and are pretty much trolling at this stage. She is full of it at present as tweeting about Tsunamis of exonerating evidence means nothing. Submitting it means everything and that hasn't happened yet. I'm sorry you expect me to take a claim at face value and expect that claim with nothing to show for it to make me reconsider my position. That's not gonna happen, no sane person would engage in such irrationality.
So again why are you even engaging with me so? If you feel my position is flawed, then the onus is upon you to provide evidence to support this.
My position is that I agree with the court. Ergo pointing out how the court erred would be a valid issue.
Why do you need this spelled out to you?
Yet again you're disregarding what I said on multiple occasions about exonerating evidence- you're trolling and seem to have an issue with me personally which I couldn't care less about.
My asking you to provide evidence that would make me reconsider my position is proof of my objectivity. Your refusal to do so is proof of your bluster, as if any more were needed.
Your feelings on whether I personally agreed with the jury on flawed grounds, due to what you consider to be my personal flaws are utterly irrelevant as this isn't the Corpus_Vile board or a thread on whether or not I'm objective or not and again is just you weirdly fixating on me personally- again which is of no interest to me and utterly irrelevant to the Issue of Avery's guilt, innocence, fair or unfair trial.
This board essentially covers discussion on whether Avery did it or not.
Court says he did.
I agree with the court.
Therefore, what's relevant is whether or not the court I agree with screwed up objectively. If they didn't, then again it doesn't matter how you personally feel how I personally evaluated things as I wasn't on the jury nor is this board about me. Read that a million times until it sinks in, please.
If you're not saying my position is flawed then we have no need to continue engaging with each other.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
If you're not saying my position is flawed then we have no need to continue engaging with each other.
I'm not sure it's possible to have been any clearer that I am indeed not saying that. After giving examples of my neutral position you're still going on as if I've taken a side against you. That's why I mentioned it must be exhausting to demand people prove what they haven't claimed.
i already explained to you the context of that remark very much within the present status of the case.
Except an appeal is all about arguing errors of law. Your statement was a clear indication that you have decided, in advance, not to accept an outcome that finds evidence of this at trial.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Last thing you've been is clear. On anything really, apart from what a big meanie you apparently feel I am.
You saw fit to proactively engage with me and engage in passive aggressive veiled ad hominem attacks for no reason, so... I'm only going by what you post, whatlark. But suffice to say, your proclaimed neutrality sounds dubious to me.
And I asked you umpteen times to clarify how the court erred via legal procedural or systematic errors and you ran away, whinged about me, ran away some more and then took refuge by proclaiming your neutrality, again which I'm taking with a dose of scepticism btw, considering your entire exchange with me.
So yet again can you point any errors of law out that the trial engaged in?
If not, then you haven't validated how my position is flawed or how I'm biased and again this isn't about me and for the last time I'm not interested in your widdle feelings about me, and earlier on you were going on about a jury sitting on an appellate highlighting your ignorance in this regard as well as originally asserting that evidence would be heard with your question to me re juries and evidence in US appellate courts. Now you're fixating on points of law disregarding that you ran away several times from my question re legal errors.
Also explain to me how a legal error equates to an actual exoneration, thanks. Most people on this board seem to know the difference so you may not wish to go there. Exoneration and legal errors which get convictions overturned with a possible retrial are completely different things, so a legal error would not refute my position of guilt, but would merely adequately highlight why Avery deserved to have his conviction overturned.
Again you're trolling. Already covered with my comments on exonerating evidence and I don't do repetition.
Do you have anything else to add?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I don't do repetition
If we subtracted the repetition there'd be quite a few blanks. Including your last post.
My neutrality on the SA case, and on your conclusions about it, have been overtly stated, multiple times. I outlined them above. The only thing I'm not neutral on, again plainly stated, is your claim of objectivity.
You're not going by what I post, but have consistently misconstrued and mischaracterized what i've actually said. For example, continuing to insist that I've found your conclusions wrong, when I've actually said that you very well could be right, and that lack of objectivity isn't necessarily an impediment to finding the truth. I'm not sure it's possible for anyone to make a more reasonable case. In fact you earlier agreed that it is reasonable to bring a measure of scepticism to your comments, so your repetitious fuss is completely senseless.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
But again I wasn't on the jury, nor is this the Corpus Vile show so your feelings are irrelevant.
This is very simple:
You think I'm not objective.
I don't care.
Reason being, is because whether I'm objective or not, doesn't negate the evidence against Avery. You could prove my objectivity or lack thereof by providing the evidence I asked for that would then have me reconsider my position, showing how I was objective.
But you're unwilling or unable to do so and I suspect you're unable but simply unwilling to admit to this.
So your claim is irrelevant.
Yes I am going by what you post whatlark and am concentrating on the relevant bit, hence the reason I snipped the entirety of one of your posts as it was superfluous to the issue.
But again I agree with the jury and court. If you could point out how they erred then you could highlight how I wasn't being objective for missing what you were able to provide, or at the very least could claim you were smarter than me.
Then you could show how my agreement with the court was flawed and kick back and watch me either admit I was wrong or take a leaf from your book and evade and run away.
But you can't, so again your feelings on me are irrelevant and don't objectively refute my position or claims of objectivity.
Anything else?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I don't do repetition
You've been busy rendering that claim absurd, repeatedly.
I've stated multiple times that you very well could be right, and that lack of objectivity isn't necessarily an impediment to finding the truth. You even agreed that it's reasonable to bring a measure of scepticism to your comments. So all your repetitive huffing and puffing makes no sense.
I've never stated or even implied that whether you're "objective or not, doesn't negate the evidence against Avery." Again, you're defending what hasn't been challenged.
Meanwhile your lack of objectivity has been showcased, on this thread and others, for the reasons noted earlier in the thread. I find it cause enough to bring a measure of scepticism to your commentary, without actually disagreeing with it. That's hardly a provocative thing to say, and you have agreed wholeheartedly with that approach. Yet here you are, repetitively up in arms about it. It's odd, that hypersensitivity.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Yes, you think I'm very subjective I get that and it's okay.
But apart from what you feel (passionately and fervently if your long posts of so far irrelevant waffle are anything to go by) about how I suffer from raging lack of objectivity... do you have anything of substance to provide that would force me to examine my deep flaws?
Cuz yet again I couldn't care less how you feel about me or how um, showcased said things you feel about me have been made clear by your erudite expose, in your view.
But if you can actually provide anything of substance that would have me examine my lack of objectivity then that would be great.
Btw, since you've showcased my lack of objectivity, again- am I lying with my comments re exonerating evidence? Or not?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I think nothing short of melding with a large object would have you examine your lack of objectivity.
Evidently you care a great deal about what I think of your claim to objectivity. Your repetitive defensiveness and increasingly melodramatic posts contradict your denial.
You stated that you wholeheartedly agree with taking a sceptical approach to what you say, so your repetitive umbrage is very odd.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
No, I'm simply marveling at your continued delusion that how you feel about me is in any way relevant to well, anything. But if that's what you wish to infer then yeah sure why not.
Do you have anything else to add about me, to get off your chest? It's just that I gave up long ago expecting anything remotely approaching substance from you.
Seeing as you're unable or unwilling to provide anything other than how you feel how flawed I am as if I give a rat's ass, do you have any other potential flaws you wish to whinge about?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
You acknowledged the relevance, and wholeheartedly agreed with me. I'll look after the popcorn while you sort yourself out.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
But you haven't said one relevant thing in this entire exchange. Just that I may be right but still not objectively agreeing with a court of law as if this means anything when it's just you whinging about how flawed you feel I am
Seeing as you've nothing to offer this thread but irrelevant whinging about how close minded I am while providing nothing to refute my position because that's not what you were even trying to find, you just wish to whinge about me personally... Is there anything else you'd like to whinge about me?
If I do a list of the flaws you mention, perhaps you could c&p it and then add more flaws as you feel get further erm, showcased? It's just that your spamming a thread up with your whingey irrelevant trolling, so would that be better? A list? Of corpus vile flaws? Would that make you feel better?
Or would you maybe prefer to merely spam some more? With yet more passive aggressive eye glazingly boring whinging?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I refer you to the fact that you acknowledged the relevance, and wholeheartedly agreed with me.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Eh? Sorry you've lost me.
Can you explain to me one relevant thing you've said to me within the context of the actual topic of the actual thread you're posting on?
As in without the usual garbled long winded stuff?
ETA: Just gone over our recent posts still not seeing it where I've acknowledged one single relevant thing you've said. Link?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Given that you emphatically acknowledged the relevance earlier in the thread, you shouldn't need further explanation from me. I have no idea how you lost your way from there. That's the mystery.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Nope. Link? Don't know what you're waffling about whatlark so again, link? Or is this your new troll schtick? Like your running away from my questions was part of your troll schtick? Let's see how many times you bluster how you don't need to explain, troll. Care to back up your claim? Link?
What relevance have I acknowledged? Specifically?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Speaking of running away, you've confirmed that you intentionally didn't read what was plainly stated. Earlier today I quoted your original agreement and you deliberately ignored it, saying "Okay, thanks for that," and going about your repetitious way. Yet you went on to reference that agreement. You're all over the place.
I said that when I encounter a style of communication like yours that tends to the aggressive and personal, I assume some doubt about the person's ability to see as objectively as they insist they do. Further to that context I said I think it's reasonable to take your characterizations of others' objections with some dose of skepticism. To which you emphatically agreed. The rest is a repetition of your struggle to find the plot:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5189670/board/nest/259549595?p=3&d=260068380#260068380
"You may be right, or more right than others, but given the evident bias I think it's reasonable to take your characterizations with some dose of skepticism."http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5189670/board/nest/259549595?p=3&d=260109686#260109686
"^^Yes. Absolutely. Damn straight. Do not at all take my word for this as I'm merely a bloke on the internet. Do your own research. The facts of this case are available are primary sources. Let your very healthy skepticism at what I said lead you to explore the primary sources."
"In fact, you agreed that my sceptical approach was reasonable, given your evident bias: "Yes. Absolutely. Damn straight. Do not at all take my word for this as I'm merely a bloke on the internet. Do your own research."
Yeah? That simply means don't take anything in general you read on the internet at face value, not from me or anyone else. I told you to do your own research. You otoh have implied that my comments on exonerating evidence should be treated with skepticism implying I want potentially innocent people imprisoned, which I can comfortably dismiss.
So you finally done? Or is there anything else, troll? This is what you're reduced to clinging at? You really ate pathetic btw, spamming up a thread with your trolling and personal fixations.
You done here or what?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
If we each got paid every time "irrelevant" was used on this board, we'd be richer than we are!
Yep. Definitely GBS territory.
implying I want potentially innocent people imprisoned
No such implication has been made; in fact I've repeatedly stated, in plain English, that you may be right, and that lack of objectivity isn't necessarily an impediment to finding truth. To continue beating that dead horse despite multiple such clarifications (summarized earlier) is either willful ignorance or a problem of reading comprehension.
Your enthusiastic agreement wasn't "simply" a general one, but had a more specific meaning given it was quite clearly made within the context of my observing a lack of objectivity in your commentary and informing you that this was grounds for me to bring a dose of scepticism to it. In fact your agreeing reply actually quoted those grounds for scepticism -- specifically, my finding your evident bias a given. Agreement to take a sceptical approach is valid generally, but in this case it was made in direct response to the specific context of grounds for applying it to you.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Sure you did, see your scepticism on my remarks about exonerating evidence for details, troll.
let's recap:
I agree with a court of law's verdict.
You say I'm biased evaluating the evidence.
I ask you to refute my position and agreement with the court.
You then say that you're not even trying to refute my position, that I may be right but that I'm still biased anyway.
I point out how your feelings are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
You continue whinging about me despite it being pointed out with objective validity how your feelings are moot.
You're a jaw droppingly pathetic troll.
Now... is there anything else?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
As I mentioned, and you misunderstood, your comments about exonerating evidence were irrational. I'd said that the content of your posts shows that emotion is influential on your thought process, meaning it's reasonable to assume that you're likely to be less than objective in your review of the evidence. I said that this lack of objectivity doesn't "nullify" your comments, but gives good reason to treat them with a healthy dose of scepticism.
You concurred with taking that approach, as established above.
However, you also blurted the sarcasm "when I said what I said about exonerating evidence, I was lying when I said it." Which of course wasn't implied at all. As an example of non-objectivity, it was a dandy.
I point out how your feelings are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Your recap neglected to mention my follow-up to that pronouncement. Which is par for the course for a far-from-objective participant. I noted that you claimed "Zellner is clearly full of it," without knowing anything about her appeal case. I further noted that you claimed "If his conviction is overturned then it's just another case of innocence fraud out of control," which is baldly saying that matter what error in law and/or new evidence (which Appellate courts do encounter in their briefs) is brought by the defence, if the court overturns SA's conviction you will not accept it.
Meanwhile, you accuse others of going by feelings, and make yourself out to be objective. You're not very self-aware.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
https://media4.giphy.com/media/IRfuLoUiEWkGk/200w.gif another intellectual stiff arm.
share[deleted]
CV, it is a troll. Long history of trolling too. You won't get any answers.
There's a long line of people who have been reported by that user as well. I don't know who Dmaria is but someone did and offered some insight and something happened to him. Dmaria is someone that probably has the best opinions about that user. Thank you for allowing me to speak in this instance.
[deleted]
again, what or who is dmaria, and what does dmaria have to do with whatlarks?
haven't seen any evidence of wishing 2 cause harm 2 others, only discussion w/cv which went past expiry date, but that's on both ends.
Well, buyer beware. This character follows me around, hoping to sew distrust by spreading vague innuendo based on vague hearsay. I assume at some point he/she didn't fare so well in an exchange with me and the resentment has festered. That's the internet for you. That's IMDb.
I very rarely report a post, and never on the grounds that someone happens to disagree with me, or I that don't like them, etc. The "long line" thing is imaginary. This person may well believe it, but that's not saying much. Read them: they can barely put a sentence together. When I have made a report, it's been a rare instance of truly damaging violations of terms like out-and-out racism, or someone spamming advertisements for a piracy site.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
CV, it is a troll. Long history of trolling too. You won't get any answers.
There's a long line of people who have been reported by that user as well. I don't know who Dmaria is but someone did and offered some insight and something happened to him. Dmaria is someone that probably has the best opinions about that user. Thank you for allowing me to speak in this instance.
How so when it hasn't said one relevant thing re the issue at hand?
If I agree with a court's position, the reasonable thing to do would be to point out how the court erred, which would make me reconsider my position. The troll just whinged about me personally when I wasn't on the jury. It's therefore irrelevant whether it thinks I'm biased or not, but only whether or not my position is independently supported, which it is.
Are you telling me you don't see this?
How is it a match by running away from questions, and then backpedaling furiously and claiming laughably7 that it wasn't trying to refute my position anyway but that I'm personally biased as if it trumps the court?
Let's say you agreed with the court, then it would be like this:
CV: You're biased K for agreeing with the court!
K- Okay. How did the court screw up, and maybe I'll change my mind?
CV... I never said the court screwed up, but you're still biased!
Again, do you not actually realise this? How tf is this relevant? It's actually very plain and simple, is all.
I think you got upset at our convo, hence here you are defending an evident troll, due to your chagrin.
And yeah it's way way intellectual with its silly claims about juries being in US appellate courts.
"Pay grade"? What? I have no idea what you mean here, sorry.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Again, do you not actually realise this? It's actually very plain and simple, is all.
I think you got upset at our convo, hence here you are defending an evident troll, due to your chagrin
Here's another heads-up: I see that someone has "reported" me. You know when someone has done that when you see red letters warning you to abide by the terms and conditions of IMDb.
Of course I've violated no IMDb terms and conditions. Those refer to serious things like hate speech. So in order to "report," you have to pick what IMDb considers a truly serious violation. In other words, they had to lie when they tattled.
If everyone reacted like that there'd be no one left to chat on IMDb!
Anyway, I look at the warning as an advertisement that I've gotten under a wimp's thin skin. Take that, wimp!
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Here's another heads-up: I see that someone has "reported" me.
Admittedly i am inflammatory at times. But over the last few hours some of my totally innofensive posts on averys trial were 'admin deleted' - someone is abusing the report system by using multiple accounts to report posts they don't agree with.
sharesomeone is abusing the report system by using multiple accounts to report posts they don't agree with.
Has to be automatic, then, simply if someone flags a post. Because, under the rules, no post of WL is even slightly reportable.
Here's another heads-up: I see that someone has "reported" me.
...Okay. I'll attempt once more. Even though it is very simple- the only way for a viable discussion on this board is for each opposing group to present their arguments for guilt, innocence, unfair trial, whatevs- meaning that any opining on the perceived flaws of other posters is moot. It doesn't negate or support the poster's position. If one claims they're not attempting to negate the poster's position then one is essentially engaging in an irrelevant argumentum ad hominem.
Somebody- I think it was you but am not certain on this due to my having multiple discussions and apologies if I'm wrong- claimed that they thought Avery was a bad person who however had suffered an unfair trial. I asked how the court screwed up validly- how specifically the trial was unfair. The other poster couldn't point out how the trial was unfair. Therefore, I can afford not to accept that the trial was unfair as there's no evidence to support it.
Here, I agree with the court.
Troll says I'm not objectively evaluating the evidence, when it's not me troll has to find flaw in, it's my agreement with the court's verdict, as the topic of the board isn't me and how objective/biased I am, but on the Theresa Halbach case.
Troll then says it isn't trying to actually refute my agreement or argument or position but that it's nonetheless observing that I'm biased.
My response is that its opinion of me personally is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Troll then goes on and on and then on some more, despite this being explained to it.
How does that equate to intellectualism? How does calling me biased as it thinks I'll disregard what a jury decides after evaluating evidence at a US appellate court equate to being intellectual?
Can you explain to me the relevance of attacking me personally instead of reasonably attempting to refute my position?
And if the intention is not to refute my position, but merely to point out what's, perceived as personal flaws, then again how is this relevant to the topic of this board?
Can you explain that to me? I'm genuinely curious is all. How is that not trolling?
Okay then if you're not upset at our convo... are you therefore telling me that whinging about me instead of refuting my position- again within the context of the topic of this board- is somehow relevant?
Again- how?
And I'm still unclear on your pay grade remarks, could you clarify?
Cheers.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
WhatLarks seems to be able to challenge and hold his/her ground. I would not consider him/her a troll just because he/she is new to the board and is in a debate with CV. WhatLarks is definitely a wordsmith with excellent sentence structure. He/She is worth a read and the perfect one to go up against CV
[deleted]
So why are you here? Becauase as far as i can tell you only showed up to warn us about wl...?
shareThanks for the heads up, I wasn't aware it was a known troll, my bad. I'll stick it on ignore so, thanks again for the heads up.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Personally, I'll consider it a "time out" rather than a proper ignoring. After all, Mr. "You Have the Last Word... Except If I Change My Mind Because It's Too Good" doesn't exactly have a strong record of self-discipline.
It makes perfect sense that this champion for the cause of objectivity would jump to accept vague innuendo about someone he/she doesn't happen to like. No evidence? Sign him up!
It speaks to character.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
[deleted]
Hey, please, enough is enough! This board is for discussing, debating, informing, etc. in reference to "Making A Murderer". This board is NOT about attacking one another. As catbookss stated this board has become a snake pit, in other words...a bunch of vipers!
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
Good question.
I also somehow doubt his/her claim that he/she knows ...what, "people" ?....who write better than WL. The one he/she is "helping" is clearly not one. Not altogether shabby but not in WL's league. And speaking of "belittling"......
[deleted]
I'm seeing "Peace out" used a lot in closing, particularly by those including personal attacks against other posters.
Does it denote an ingroup/outgroup thing?
And, anyway, I thought it went out with the 80s.
i'm sorry, but in rereading your exchanges w/whatlarks, i see no evidence of trolling, merely disagreement, and in some cases not even that: whatlarks said several times you may be right and others wrong, in the final analysis.
yet, on the say-so of one poster -- no doubt well-meaning in his/her way -- who's never before posted on this board, u conclude whatlarks is a troll, and put him/her on ignore primarily bc s/he disagreed w/ some of your statements. s/he even said several times that you may be right in your final analysis of this case.
so what objective reason do u have 2 declare him/her a troll, other than disagreeing w/ your stated objectivity, and one person who has never \before posted on this board's say-so? whatlarks has been polite, no ad homonyms directed towards u or anyone else, and has been overall respectful of everyone, including you? this makes no sense 2 me.
You're my hero!
shareBtw you mind if I ask you a couple of questions?
Where in your opinion has this "tsunami of evidence" (apparently according to Zellner) has been hiding for the past nine years? I mean, was it in a storage locker somewhere or did Zellner maybe stumble across it while out jogging?
Or was it accumulated by the other defence lawyers who somehow misplaced it or forgot to submit it until Zellner discovered it? Maybe?
Is it possible that the cops suppressed this evidence for nine years?
Now, let's say I don't require any evidence for this possibility re the cops suppressing the Tsunami of exonerating evidence... would the possibility then become more likely? Again bearing in mind I require absolutely nothing at all whatsoever for this possibility?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
[deleted]
Yeah I was actually kinda taking the pi... erm, joshing about with my remarks, no worries.
Anyway I'm I'm pretty much finished my visit here and am only responding to you because I meant to reply to this part of your earlier post:
You may be right, or more right than others, but given the evident bias I think it's reasonable to take your characterizations with some dose of skepticism.
[deleted]
Say What! Is it possible for you to give a simplistic reply to someone who is not well versed in law legalese? I am a layperson doing my best to understand complex issues. I don't take everything at face value. I do research, but you lost me after the first sentence after the affirmative response:
We can objectively evaluate the evidence and come to a logical conclusion, in this case guilty, bard.
Sorry but why don't you want him "exonerated outright"? Someone either did something or they didn't. If they factually didn't do it then they deserve exoneration. If they did do it they deserve to stay in prison which is where Avery belongs and deserves to be.
"Brendan's DNA was not found anywhere that was searched related to the crime. His description of the crime- including slashing Teresa's throat in Avery's bedroom- is virtually impossible based on the complete lack of Teresa's blood found there. His confession appears to be a textbook example of coercion, while he seemingly guesses at answers he thinks they want to hear, at one point admitting to his mother "they just got to my head."
Sorry I'm on my phone right now and am gonna be pretty busy over the weekend so I promise to get back and respond to your post with the proper attention it warrants. I don't feel like I was engaging in legalese but apologies if it came out that way and will try to speak more plainly when I properly get back to you. I too am a layman I simply impartially analyse and interpret the data facts and evidence and come to my own conclusions. I'm every bit as fallible as the next person
Cheers.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Okay, here's what I said:
Or we cannot be objective
and engage in pretzel contortionist logic
conflate possibility with probability
repeat already rejected defence arguments expecting them to have gravitas this time around, because this time they're repeated on podcasts or internet forums
and regard an absolutely symmetrical string of anomalies simultaneously occurring parallel to each other in the same case as having a higher probative value than guilt.
If we do option B, then yeah he was clearly railroaded.
Dassey saying Avery was sweaty becomes significant because DNA extracted from Avery's sweat was found.
Was the issue raised in court?
It's irrelevant if gloves weren't changed as there are no universal standards for DNA gathering. Guidelines vary from country to country and in the U.S. from state to state.
How did the cops get Avery's sweat or skin cells and plant it here and there under the hood which Dassey also mentions in his confession btw.
Where did the source DNA come from?
What was the method of transfer?
Again was this issue raised in court by the defence?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
As per me:
But, to agree with you for the moment, if SA's DNA did come directly from him, how would they know it was "sweat" which contained it. If it is possible to denote "sweat", isn't it odd it was just on the hood latch, no droplets elsewhere, on the hood, on the battery or on the cables which he was to have disconnected.
How did the cops get Avery's sweat or skin cells and plant it here and there under the hood which Dassey also mentions in his confession btw.
Where did the source DNA come from?
What was the method of transfer?
Was the DNA evidence used to convict Avery, yes or no?
I'm not even sure what you're asking me here or how your nitpicking is relevant with all due respect, sorry. Are you saying that it might have been Avery's DNA but not extracted from sweat?
If the cops didn't plant it then how did they get his DNA?
Again was evidence covered in court? Did Avery's defence argue against the evidence?
Did the jury buy it?
How is this relevant?
Btw is there evidence that the tech never changed his gloves? Was this established by the court?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Btw is there evidence that the tech never changed his gloves? Was this established by the court?
Never said I knew the case inside and out, please point out where I did. I've read through the available court documents and am still doing so. Doesn't mean I know the absolute minutia of everything established at the trials.
Never proactively mentioned nitpicking kspkap did I merely responded.
Stop misrepresenting what was said. Stick me on ignore if you have a problem with me, problem solved. You don't bring anything to the discussion anyway just waffle with no evidence to show for it.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Was the DNA evidence used to convict Avery, yes or no?
Are you saying that it might have been Avery's DNA but not extracted from sweat?
But it did come from him, there's no if about it so how did it get there and how come it's supported by Dasseys confession and how did the cops get his non blood DNA if it was planted? It's thought to be either Avery's sweat or else his skin cells, why is this relevant if you acknowledge that it was accepted by the jury as evidence?
How is it odd? Sorry but are you saying that Avery didn't sweat sufficiently enough for you and that he should have sweated elsewhere under the hood? I'm not trying to be smart but that's what I'm inferring from your question sorry.
Why must we remember that it was found months later, what's this got to do with anything? You do realise that DNA found years and indeed decades later is accepted and used in courts of law the world over, right? I genuinely don't understand your point here or your rehashing of what was thoroughly covered in court , sorry.
Btw and don't mind my asking but how do you think Ms Halbach's remains were found there? Do you think the cops planted her body? Who do you think murdered her?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
But it did come from him, there's no if about it so how did it get there and how come it's supported by Dasseys confession and how did the cops get his non blood DNA if it was planted? It's thought to be either Avery's sweat or else his skin cells, why is this relevant if you acknowledge that it was accepted by the jury as evidence?
How is the tech not changing his gloves relevant when guidelines vary re DNA gathering and touch DNA wasn't established by the court as fact?
Sweat is a carrier though so DNA such as skin cells that merged with the sweat could be extracted and used as evidence.
From what I can gather you appear to be contesting this? As in the evidence itself? I'm not sure why you're contesting it if it was scrutinized and accepted after scrutiny though, as I'm not sure precisely on what specific grounds you're objecting to it, if you are in fact objecting to it?
My apologies but I'm honestly not understanding your position as much as I'd like to and again my apologies.
Do you feel that the tech transplanted Avery's sweat and DNA though?
Do you feel that touching something will automatically leave DNA traces?
I don't find it odd personally so I don't think I can answer your question to your satisfaction, sorry as I don't have a problem with the evidence as again I don't see it as odd.
Why do you feel touch DNA needs to be considered if again the evidence was accepted after defence arguments?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
How is the tech not changing his gloves relevant when guidelines vary re DNA gathering and touch DNA wasn't established by the court as fact?
From what I can gather you appear to be contesting this? As in the evidence itself? I'm not sure why you're contesting it if it was scrutinized and accepted after scrutiny though, as I'm not sure precisely on what specific grounds you're objecting to it, if you are in fact objecting to it?
Well it wasn't considered a strong enough reasonable possibility to nullify the evidence against Avery as the jury accepted it. They did this after it was scrutinised and all arguments and expert testimony heard, against the backdrop of the totality of the evidence, so I wouldn't regard possible transference as a compelling issue, personally.
I don't think it's relevant if DNA evidence used to convict a defendant was either from sweat or any other agent- point being it was accepted, regardless of what precisely it consisted of.
As far as touching something and leaving our DNA behind it is more than likely. When we walk into a room we leave a little bit of ourselves behind. Around 80% of dust in our homes are skin cells.
The percentage of the dust in your home that is actually dead skin cells is approximately 75% to 90%
But it doesn't say it's an absolute given and the convictions of many killers who left no traces of themselves at the crime scene, or else killed victims in their homes, of whom no physical traces were found, belie such claims anyway.
Yes we do tend to shed skin or leave traces at times and other times we don't as many convictions of such killers have proven.
Again, you seem to be saying that because you feel it's more likely that more physical evidence should have been available or found, then it couldn't have occurred otherwise and that any evidence that actually supports it occurring can be disregarded or take less priority over your personal perceptions and again, with respect I really feel you're engaging in a fallacy here, no offence intended.
It's important not to conflate one's personal criteria for proof with the standard burden of proof bar and standard criteria for proof as one's personal criteria does not equate to a wrongful conviction in an objective sense. It simply means that one feels that there should be a higher criteria for proof, but again that doesn't equate to an actual wrongful conviction, an unfair trial or reasonable doubt.
That's not to say you're not entitled to have your opinion or that your concerns aren't from good intentions, to clarify.
But I don't agree that one can make objectively valid objections- within the context of due process, burden of proof & BARD & within the context of a trial- based on such things and we'll have to agree to disagree with each other in this regard, I'm afraid.
Cheers for your thoughtful comments though, they did make me think and choose my words in order to explain myself properly, fwtw.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
How did the cops get Avery's sweat or skin cells and plant it here and there under the hood which Dassey also mentions in his confession btw.
Dassey's IQ is 71 iirc which is considered low normal, same as Jesse Miskelley of the WM3. Low normal is not mentally retarded, so his rights weren't violated nor did he suffer a violation of due process.
An overturned conviction or a not guilty acquittal doesn't equate to an exoneration. Adnan Syed is a good example, as is Kelly Michaels, despite her being listed by various innocence projects as exonerated. Nobody refers to OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony as "exonerated". An exoneration is a finding of factual innocence, some convictions are overturned but that doesn't mean the courts regard the defendants/former felons as innocent.
Some people are acquitted due to insanity while being factually guilty, so if Avery does get his conviction overturned (which I doubt but you never know, I guess), he'll only be most likely "exonerated" i the eyes of his supporters but not in the real world.
I can expand on this if you wish.
DNA evidence isn't required for a conviction so it's irrelevant if none of Dassey's DNA was found.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Nobody refers to OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony as "exonerated".
I'm responding to the point raised re an exoneration. From what I've seen it certainly doesn't apply to Avery.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Nobody refers to OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony as "exonerated".
Why would anyone refer to OJ Simpson as "exonerated"? He was acquitted! As was Casey Anthony.
My response was to a post expressing hope that Avery wasn't exonerated due to a technicality. Registery of exonerations list both Amanda Knox and Kelly Michaels as exonerated when neither were exonerated. A news channel which uploaded on youtube an interview with Jason Baldwin of the WM3 claimed he was exonerated via new evidence when Baldwin is regarded as guilty by the state.
So evidently some don't know the difference between an acquittal, overturned conviction or exoneration.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Registery of exonerations list both Amanda Knox and Kelly Michaels as exonerated when neither were exonerated
So evidently some don't know the difference between an acquittal, overturned conviction or exoneration.
It's an important distinction though. Huge difference between smoking gun evidence proving factual innocence and someone having a conviction overturned on a technicality or being acquitted on insufficient evidence.
It's why I have no problem saying that Avery was a genuine exoneree and genuinely factually innocent and genuinely wrongfully convicted for the rape. He's guilty of murder though legally and Imo factually.
I won't be changing my position either unless I see compelling evidence of innocence as opposed to theorem.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Technically he is right
I merely answered your post to provide information for the benefit of others reading impartially. People like you are incapable of hurting my feelings considering you make a big deal of proclaiming that you're ignoring people yet then go out of your way to talk about them. Such boring and childish behaviour is about a rung up from trolling, and you're clearly incapable of backing up your position anyway. Again this response isn't for your benefit doggie. Now go bark somewhere else you hot air little blowhard.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Dassey's IQ is 71 iirc which is considered low normal, same as Jesse Miskelley of the WM3. Low normal is not mentally retarded, so his rights weren't violated nor did he suffer a violation of due process.
A person is considered intellectually disabled if he or she has an IQ of less than 70 to 75.
A test score below or around 70—or as high as 75—indicates a limitation in intellectual functioning.
IQ Score And Corresponding Intelligence Level
Under 70: Very mentally retarded
71-80: Mentally retarded
80–89 Low average
70–79 Borderline impaired or delayed
Intellectual disability is a below-average cognitive ability with three (3) characteristics:
Intelligent quotient (or I.Q.) is between 70-75 or below
Significant limitations in adaptive behaviors (the ability to adapt and carry on everyday life activities such as self-care, socializing, communicating, etc.)
The onset of the disability occurs before age 18.
Ah so his cognitive IQ is two points higher than I originally thought, thanks for the heads up.
Is a defendant with a cognitive IQ of 73 under Wisconsin law considered mentally retarded to the point of diminished responsibility?
Because if it is, yet Dassey is still convicted then you may have a genuinely valid bona fide example of how the court screwed up, leading to an unfair trial for Dassey. So is it? Considered a case for mental retardation re defendants?
Or are defendants under Wisconsin law with a cognitive IQ of 73 and verbal of 69 considered responsible for their actions, should they commit crimes?
Jesse Miskelley had an IQ score of 71, which was considered low normal by an Arkansas court or not deemed an issue that would lead to diminished responsibility, which is why I made my claim, so seeing as you're proactively claiming coercion and appear to be claiming that Dassey suffers genuine mental retardation, are you saying that this is a valid example of an unfair due process and can you confirm that it's a violation of Wisconsin law?
Thanks in advance.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
no problem. yes, brendan was tested at 69 -- below any criterion for mild retardation -- for verbal/written iq, and 73 for cognitive.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rEpKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=wisconsin+iq+mental+retardation&source=bl&ots=VLC2gJ-Qwp&sig=mnELt0j2aIfRQBPXlkAkQRtyoFc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOuMb4vLfOAhUS-2MKHbvTBRM4ChDoAQgsMAI#v=onepage&q=wisconsin%20iq%20mental%20retardationiqiq&f=false
i don't believe this is a matter of being responsible or not 4 one's actions, legally or not; that isn't what's stated, nor is it what i'm asserting. the two organizations i've quoted are national organizations, both of which specifically specialize in those who have intellectual deficiencies/mental retardation.
your position is brendan is/was guilty, by virtue of his 'confession,' which is in fact all over the map. he says teresa was stabbed, choked, throat slit in sa's bedroom, despite there being no corroborating evidence of this 'confession.' he said many things, including those which not only had no corroborating evidence, but in fact contradicted evidence as well as his own 'confessions.'
i propose bd did in fact help sa clean up after the murder, but didn't participate in it. there is a lot of evidence that this was the case, but i don't see you willing 2 even entertain it. were u as objective as you claim 2 be, you naturally would entertain it, even IF you ultimately went w/prosecution/jury's claim.
i don't believe this is a matter of being responsible or not 4 one's actions, legally or not; that isn't what's stated, nor is it what i'm asserting. the two organizations i've quoted are national organizations, both of which specifically specialize in those who have intellectual deficiencies/mental retardation.
If Dassey is considered legally culpable by law then he didn't suffer an unfair due process via his low IQ
That flawed logic should be self-evident. It's not, because of lack of objectivity.
Or as Vile put it:
"I happen to know whether or not I'm objectively evaluating evidence by virtue of the fact that I'm the one objectively evaluating it."http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5189670/board/nest/259549595?p=4&d=260074731#260074731
Wtf.
There is no IQ number that would alone determine you were not legally responsible for your actions.
Being legally responsible is totally beside the point that his IQ made him more susceptible to false confession than someone who may have a 90+ IQ for example.
Believe he is guilty if you want - but his confession is jacked and your attempts to move the goal posts are ridiculous.
The only question that needs an answer: is someone with low verbal reasoning and cognitively ability more or less likely to be led to false confession by coercive interrogation techniques?
Okay so what you're saying is that Dassey is actually mentally retarded and are providing links from national organisations to back up your assertion, from what I can gather.
How does this help Dassey, though in the here and now? You appear to be not contesting that it's an issue that would violate state law, which would constitute an unfair trial which could lead to Dassey's possible release.
You appear to wish to discuss Dassey's potential mental impairments/retardation in an abstract sense? Sorry if I've inferred wrongly. Dassey nor Avery weren't tried on the internet. In fairness I've made clear from the start that anything I say is within the context of my agreement with the court's verdict.
Did representatives from either organization testify at his trial on his behalf giving evidence that he was mentally retarded and that the trial constituted a violation of his rights?
But the law doesn't require anything else other than an admission against interest to be consistent, therefore doesn't equate to coercion.
Okay- if it's absolutely provable, why wasn't it proven where it mattered most, in court? This is what I mean about being tried on the internet. You claim absolute proof while disregarding the conviction. You claim unfair due process yet acknowledge you're not talking about perceived impairments re legal responsibility or culpability. So I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Sure their is Dassey and Avery's convictions support my position. Not my feelings but the courts, I merely agree with their feelings as the courts feelings arise against the backdrop of submitted evidence whereas your feelings are just feelings backed by national organisations which never bothered testifying to back up your feelings. We're going around in circles here car.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Did representatives from either organization testify at his trial on his behalf giving evidence that he was mentally retarded and that the trial constituted a violation of his rights?
But the law doesn't require anything else other than an admission against interest to be consistent, therefore doesn't equate to coercion.
Okay- if it's absolutely provable, why wasn't it proven where it mattered most, in court?
Sure their is Dassey and Avery's convictions support my position. Not my feelings but the courts
Cat:
One of the worst false confession cases I've ever heard about:
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/02/144489360/how-a-teens-coerced-confession-set-her-free
-----
Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/
Coerced confessions occur ergo occurred with Dassey, courts get it wrong ergo got it wrong with Dassey, false convictions happen ergo happened with Dassey, cops frame ergo framed Avery?
Unless Cat can cite coercion as per the actual definition, then citing coerced confessions in general is moot.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
In the end, Duffin maintained it was the unconstitutional questioning of Dassey that made his conviction invalid.
Jaysus you're stupid.
I have asked from the start, repeatedly and consistently for valid examples to be provided, which would help me change my mind. All I got was whinging from you about what a big meanie I was. All I got from Cat was some "hey, courts get it wrong y'know, which means I have no need to specify how this court got it wrong and stop asking me to validate my position as you're repeating yourself we know you agree with the courts you keep saying it while I keep refusing to back up my assertions" routine.
And all I'm getting from you now is yet more high strung weirdness, which like that other troll whatsitsname, seems more focused on me than anything else. Go away would you? You quasi stalker weirdo.
Ah. So you do regard an overturned conviction as an actual exoneration equating to factual innocence, if your last burblings are anything to go by. As I said, you're stupid. Really stupid. Three short planks nailed together and nowhere near as interesting either.
Now are all your future posts to me going to be whingey burbling shrill irrelevancies? And I know you will respond to me with future posts as your type always does without fail. Tell me now if so, so can stick your weirdo ass on ignore. You haven't said one thing of any substance during our entire exchange.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
You haven't said one thing of any substance during our entire exchangeother than being consistently wrong about.. you know.. everything. What substance have you added? share
As per me:
"I fully expect you to make your customary derogatory reply to me."
As per you:
"Jaysus you're stupid."
"As I said, you're stupid."
"Really stupid."
"Three short planks nailed together and nowhere near as interesting either."
All this in one post.
You came through as expected! What a joy you must be! I hope to God you are not a parent, teacher, tutor as you do have an IED!
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
Coerced confessions occur ergo occurred with Dassey, courts get it wrong ergo got it wrong with Dassey, false convictions happen ergo happened with Dassey, cops frame ergo framed Avery?
Unless Cat can cite coercion as per the actual definition, then citing coerced confessions in general is moot.
No, that's exactly what you said with your courts get it wrong and so do juries routine, while all the while refusing to specify how, remember? I'm no attorney either and was able to highlight the legal, procedural and systematic errors that Acquitted Amanda Knox and also was able to highlight a legal error in an appellate which actually upheld her trial conviction and you could too, as you're not stupid and google is your friend. Don't come out with such lazy statements and people won't need to dismiss them as well as point them out to you when you then deny them.
Yes I'm aware of that, perhaps you missed my comment on another thread?
by Corpus_Vile
» 2 minutes ago (Sat Aug 13 2016 03:10:29) Flag ▼ | Edit ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2008
Jury's are rarely sequestered in the US anyway so this won't amount to an unfair trial imo.
Here's what's interesting and can give Cat's position weight (and certainly court established weight)- according to killer's mouthpiece The Guardian, one of the reasons the judge gave was :
<blockquote>Duffin also cited the actions of investigators who elicited an “involuntary” confession from the then 16-year-old. Investigators who interviewed Dassey during his confession told the teenager that they already “knew everything that happened” and that they would “stand behind you no matter what you did”.
“These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” Duffin wrote in his 91-page ruling.
Duffin called the conduct of Dassey’s attorney “indefensible” in his ruling. He faulted Len Kachinsky, the public defender who initially represented Dassey, for spending more time talking to the press about the high-profile case than actually communicating with his client. In his first three weeks as Dassey’s attorney, Kachinsky spent 10 hours speaking to reporters and one hour with Dassey, according to Duffin.
[deleted]
Actually what you have been saying all along is that brendan DID recieve a fair trial in that his confession was legally obtained.
please do look through my posts and link to anywhere i said this:
Coerced confessions occur ergo occurred with Dassey, courts get it wrong ergo got it wrong with Dassey, false convictions happen ergo happened with Dassey, cops frame ergo framed Avery?share
Of course I was gonna make a derogatory reply to you, you're a shrill weirdo who hasn't said anything interesting or intelligent throughout our exchange. That's how I tend to reply to shrill, boring, highly strung, semi stalker and intensely stupid weirdos and you're all of the aforementioned, so...
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
As per you:
That's how I tend to reply to shrill, boring, highly strung, semi stalker and intensely stupid weirdos and you're all of the aforementioned, so.
Yeah you're intensely stupid and the fact that you need it repeated to you highlights your intensely short attention span to go with your intense stupidity.
I see my prediction about any future post you burble to me being only to wail about me personally, was absolutely correct, surprise surprise, meaning that you're as predictable as you're stupid. Anyway I'm sticking you on ignore due to you being a "full time stalker" (by your own admission) oddball and less interesting than a shallow puddle of water on a rainy day.
'bye and say hi to the other nutjobs who are following me around, babbling their undoubtedly inane and certainly ignored nonsense. You jaw droppingly dim person.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Anyway I'm sticking you on ignore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE
Who does CV have left to communicate with?
Cat,
I'm aware doggie and slts have posted at times crude one line zingers. But, no one and I mean no one can hold a candle to cv. His vile, vicious replies hurled at those who disagree with him are almost psychopathic. He hides behind his computer in wait for someone to whom he can reply to with depraved ad hominem attacks!
As an aside, I don't know where exactly the others are about SA, but Mme and I are on the fence. You, on the other hand believe in his guilt. That's OK. There are those whom completely believe in Brendan's guilt. I think you are giving him the benefit of doubt. I on the other hand, believe there was no involvement on his part. I believe there is nothing factual in his badgered confession. We all have different perspectives when debating an issue.
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
He's just some dumb kid in a basement. Don't waste your time on him. (unless you enjoy destroying him...then by all means, continue)
shareOne thing on this board is for certain:
If you attempt to have a rational, intelligent, honest discussion of this case with Corpus Vile, you will eventually be insulted and called vile names by him. Because it's his unfailing "go-to" defense (or "defence") when he begins to lose the argument.
It's almost a badge of honor!
Welcome to the club, kspkap!
recently i saw a show that showed someone -- not mildly retarded, or of low iq -- who confessed 2 a murder he was later proven he hadn't committed. he had been threatened by LE to 'tell the truth,' else he'd be given the electric chair. he 'confessed' 2 avoid death, and was later proven 2 be innocent bc the real killer confessed, same as in case u brought up, where low iq person 'confessed,' was convicted bc it was 'an admission against interest,' yet was not guilty of anything.
so somehow in your mind saying this:
recently i saw a show that showed someone -- not mildly retarded, or of low iq -- who confessed 2 a murder he was later proven he hadn't committed. he had been threatened by LE to 'tell the truth,' else he'd be given the electric chair. he 'confessed' 2 avoid death, and was later proven 2 be innocent bc the real killer confessed, same as in case u brought up, where low iq person 'confessed,' was convicted bc it was 'an admission against interest,' yet was not guilty of anything.
Coerced confessions occur ergo occurred with Dassey, courts get it wrong ergo got it wrong with Dassey, false convictions happen ergo happened with Dassey, cops frame ergo framed Avery?
I'm aware doggie and slts have posted at times crude one line zingers.
As an aside, I don't know where exactly the others are about SA, but Mme and I are on the fence. You, on the other hand believe in his guilt.
Your zingers are funny at times! I'm with you re:cv. I hope you didn't misconstrue my reply....cv doesn't post zingers. I would never equate your zingers with his vile ad hominem attacks.
Ditto to your remarks about the anger on this board. I hope you didn't take as anger my post which you quoted. I was attempting to state we all have different perspectives on this case. We can agree to disagree. Good thing we as a group are not jury paneled! We would never get out of the jury room....forever sequestered! LOL!
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
I hope you didn't take as anger my post which you quoted.
Good thing we as a group are not jury paneled! We would never get out of the jury room....forever sequestered! LOL!
(especially once I found out that the relative of a deputy was on the jury...is that true? Did that really happen?)
We had a saying in Florida to the effect of "If you want to get out of jury duty, associate yourself some way with LE".
especially once I found out that the relative of a deputy was on the jury...is that true? Did that really happen?)
You'll probably get this answered many times. But yes, it is apparently true. He was, himself, a volunteer deputy for Manitowoc County, and his son was an employed deputy.
Strang has said that out of 135 of those called, they had trouble finding anyone who hadn't heard about the case or formed an opinion. I think he said that this fellow in voir dire said he could be objective, had not formed an opinion, said he could be fair .....they didn't strike him, anyway. They may have used up all their strikes.
shareStrang has said that out of 135 of those called, they had trouble finding anyone who hadn't heard about the case or formed an opinion.
Any idea if he was the one that got the "not guilty" people to turn? (Wasn't it 7-5 guilty initially?)
We would never get out of the jury room....forever sequestered! LOL!
And doggie hasn't called anyone a "murderer groupie" who "admires SA and BD for what they did" or a hybristophiliac.
Corpus Vile, in my opinion, is unchallenged in his habit of spitting insults and false accusations at those he knows only -- and judges -- from a few message board posts.
And doggie hasn't called anyone a "murderer groupie" who "admires SA and BD for what they did" or a hybristophiliac.
You need to read the latest posts between cat and cv little man. She has been challenging him on some issues. Well, cv won't stand for that. The inner vile ogre of him is starting to rear its ugly psychopathic head!
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
Is that so? I'm half tempted to unblock her.
shareI'm not "completely fine" with CV's posts. Again, you make unsupported assumptions. Just because I don't call someone out doesn't mean I agree with them. At this point I skip over a lot of posts and posters on this board... a lot.
I support CV's passion for their POV, but not necessarily everything they say. I don't care for liars or people who post things and then seem to later "forget" (conveniently) that they posted it.
-----
Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/
At this point I skip over a lot of posts and posters on this board... a lot.
I don't care for liars
Whenever I might lie, I find it quite distasteful. I haven't lied here, but I do lie. Everyone does, to varying degrees. Some lie and pretend they never said something they clearly did.
I can see why you'd like me to ignore your posts. Your discomfort is clear. You make things personal and attack people on matters of personality instead of focusing on the topic. The "safe harbor" of those with a weak argument.
-----
Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/
Whenever I might lie, I find it quite distasteful.
Filming is going well, thanks. We just finished shooting outside the Florida State Dept of Corrections facility in Zephyrhills this week. Got more footage than we needed, but experience proves more is better than less. We're shooting in 4K and the final film will be rendered at 1080p, which helps a lot in post because we can reframe shots after the fact without losing quality on the final output. We're shooting with all Canon primes on a very flat picture profile, so the footage looks excellent for color grading.
Unfortunately I still have dialysis three days a week, so we're working our shooting schedule around those sessions. But that's life. Fortunately I'm comfortably retired so my schedule isn't as detrimental to the process as it might be.
I really appreciate your interest in the project!
-----
Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/
Zephyrhills
Got more footage than we needed, but experience proves more is better than less.
We're shooting in 4K and the final film will be rendered at 1080p
This is our first purely narrative film. Previously we made corporate films: promotional, training, commercials and such. It's a completely different style of movie making, that's fore sure.
-----
Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/
ksp, that really wasn't my point, although you're right, slt and doggie can be and often are also disrespectful of others, if their opinions differs from their own.
i agree that any number of cv's responses are over the top, and often willfully obtuse, without question deliberately insulting -- without cause -- to those who disagree w/him. you are a prime example: you were nothing but polite to him but once you asked him for evidence that teresa was raped -- of which there is none, outside of brendan's now federal court-approved discounting -- he quite obviously deflected your straightforward question by asking you to instead answer the questions he asked of me. which btw i answered and had answered before.
yet your question of what evidence he had remained was, of course, UNanswered. because, aside from brendan's highly questionable, contradictory, 'confession' there is nothing, but he is too dishonest to admit it. that's concerning brendan, not sa, although there is also zero evidence sa or bd raped teresa. could they have? perhaps. i don't know, but there is no evidence that he or anyone else did. her body was burned.
cv shows his weakness by resorting to insults and ad hominum attacks on others, including and especially you, as you were quite polite to him, as well as a weakness in logic and argument.
regardless, you, and mme, will have to agree doggie had no valid reason to put me on ignore, if you are being fair and honest, that he readily puts anyone on ignore who disagrees w/him -- even those he claims to like a lot and thinks 'is great.'
again i realize, through seeing mme's copied outbox, that you and she are in regular contact, which is fine. so was she often in contact w/doggie and slt. i can say this isn't the case w/those on the 'opposing side,' as far as i'm aware. i've received a total of 2 PMs from jeff, ever, neither of which referenced anything except mme's strangely thinking some posters here were shills for 'WI's pr team' -- although she says this was half or more in jest-- and 2 recently from mrbfd, regarding whether or not mme called jeff 'name on this board -- something of which i have no question whatsoever because i saw it myself.
As an aside, I don't know where exactly the others are about SA, but Mme and I are on the fence. You, on the other hand believe in his guilt. That's OK. There are those whom completely believe in Brendan's guilt. I think you are giving him the benefit of doubt. I on the other hand, believe there was no involvement on his part. I believe there is nothing factual in his badgered confession. We all have different perspectives when debating an issue.
[deleted]
I don't put people on ignore for disagreeing with me. Mme is a frivolous reporter murderer groupie stalker so goes on ignore.
Whatatwat is a known troll and also a stalker so goes on ignore.
Kpap is a whinger who claims she has no wish to discuss the case with me. I then predict she'll follow me around simply to whinge about how much she dislikes me, which turned out to be correct, so she goes on ignore for being a weirdo crybaby who contributes nothing interesting in any exchange she has with me, so goes on ignore.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your contrariness where otoh you feel Dassey is an accomplice yet then suddenly change your mind in favour of factual innocence and disagree with you in general, yet haven't stuck you on ignore, have I?
Btw have you actually read Duffin's report or did you mention him earlier simply cuz you agree with his conclusion as opposed to reasoning? Are you aware of the discrepancies in his logic or does he seem like Mr Spock to you in this regard?
I went over our convo (and will go over again to be certain) and apologise and withdraw my remark about you saying that Dassey lied, as I can't find this, so again my apologies. Nice to see you sticking up for victims rather than rapists also, with your comments to that other pos.
So. Thoughts on Duffin and his logic/lack thereof?
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
I don't put people on ignore for disagreeing with me. Mme is a frivolous reporter murderer groupie stalker so goes on ignore.
Whatatwat is a known troll and also a stalker so goes on ignore.
Kpap is a whinger who claims she has no wish to discuss the case with me.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your contrariness where otoh you feel Dassey is an accomplice yet then suddenly change your mind in favour of factual innocence and disagree with you in general, yet haven't stuck you on ignore, have I?
Btw have you actually read Duffin's report or did you mention him earlier simply cuz you agree with his conclusion as opposed to reasoning? Are you aware of the discrepancies in his logic or does he seem like Mr Spock to you in this regard?
I went over our convo (and will go over again to be certain) and apologise and withdraw my remark about you saying that Dassey lied, as I can't find this, so again my apologies. Nice to see you sticking up for victims rather than rapists also, with your comments to that other pos. .
It flat out told me it was gonna report me and then lo and behold I got the red warning literally immediately afterward which is good enough for me. It's also a stalker as it keeps appearing after most of my posts and is also a murderer groupie who responds to posts attacking victims as if the attacks are legit.
I know you disregard things longs as they go against your feelings and you have my sympathies, fwiw.
Nah, it's a troll as could be clearly seen in its exchange and stalking of me. Which it still does and most of what passed for its arguments was whinging about me, which I have no interest in as it's irrelevant to Ms Halbach's case.
Nope. I asked you just a while back if you were now equating Dassey as factually innocent and you affirmed this after earlier saying that you thought he helped Avery clean the crime scene and then changed that to good ole Bren just blundering in at the last possible minute and seeing Ms Halbach being disposed of, that's how he knew all those pesky details!
i imagine i'm soon to be put on your ignore list, written off as a murderer groupie, et al.
It flat out told me it was gonna report me and then lo and behold I got the red warning literally immediately afterward which is good enough for me. It's also a stalker as it keeps appearing after most of my posts and is also a murderer groupie who responds to posts attacking victims as if the attacks are legit.
I know you disregard things longs as they go against your feelings and you have my sympathies, fwiw.
Report Abuse
Thanks, we already have sufficient abuse reports about this user
Administrators will be processing these in due course
For his salacious, vile, libelous, and untrue account of myself and my character.
I see I've been reported. I don't see any that any of my posts have been deleted. I'm too lazy to give a thorough look though.
But to be honest with you, my page feels naked without the warning. When it's gone I feel like a piece of me is missing.
Who is doing the reporting?
CV says he hasn't reported anyone.
Those "lurkers" who never post?
Oh and btw, Morty is a great guy, who doesn't allow himself to be dazzled by PR bs the way you do, hence your cooing over a rapist. Morty puts victims first instead of offenders.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
of course. he's a 'great guy' bc he agrees w/you.
anyone who doesn't 100% agree w/you is de facto WRONG, 'cooes over a rapist' -- never mind there's NO evidence, but yeah, you're all about facts, right? -- and has no caring about victims whatsoever, because, reasons
No. He's a great guy because he's campaigned tirelessly for an innocent murder victim for years and has tirelessly defended her memory and the dignity of her family against utterly obscene, repugnant and horrendously callous attacks, which included racist taunts over the Ms Kercher's mixed heritage, the harassment of her family on Twitter and even posting of autopsy pictures by Knox's supporters, pictures (which only the defendants had access to and which were suddenly in the hands of those who would attack victims and their families), on the internet.
In the face of personal harassment, attempts to uncover his identity, personal details of his being posted online and all the other tired bs tactics murderer groupies use and hurled at him, he persevered. He stepped up and did the right thing as a decent human being as he recognised that in this social media era, we all have a part to play when it comes to fighting against Innocence Fraud and in the case of Knox's supporters, what can only be described as truly evil behaviour. You don't know anything about me or Morty or our cause. Nor can you hope to understand it or the implications for society that not fighting such PR lies entails. If you did, you'd be with us rather than cooing over poor low IQ Brendan Dassey. Like this poor low IQ guy, who had a mere two points higher IQ than poor Dassey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottis_Toole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yomDO79Ls1c
Amazing how those low IQ guys can seem no non mentally impaired when giving media interviews, innit?
Well intentioned but extremely gullible people like you are why Innocence Fraud thrives and why biased polemic podcasts which omit evidence of guilt get convictions overturned like the podcast serial has for Adnan Syed and like biased documentaries on Netflix which omits evidence of guilt, gets convictions overturned like Brendan Dassey. Which themselves were influenced by biased polemic films which omitted evidence of guilt, such Paradise Lost which led three child murderers and child rapists out on an Alford plea, with time served, enabling two of them to profit from their infamy and heinous murders, via executive producer gigs on Peter Jackson docos such as West of Memphis, all to profit more from that Innocence Fraud cash cow, You can't even see the pattern, can you? Nor see the implications for society, where innocence is suddenly decided via social media, facts and evidence be damned, while unleashing them back on society with a nice chance of profiting from murder.
I'll take my way over yours any day of the week cat. You have no idea what's going on and again you don't know neither me nor Morty. But I am honoured to have campaigned alongside him, of that you can rest assured.
You keep drinking the koolaid and rallying against what you perceive to be an injustice long as Netflix and the media says so.
I'll stick with the truth and fighting groupies.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Wow, thanks man. I tries, although my efforts are minuscule compared to the mighty likes of yourself and several others. Will say I am a little disturbed by the stalker-like behavior that some on this board have displayed, but I guess that's par for the course when dealing with murderer groupies and shouldn't be surprised. As I've always said, the real "haters" are the ones that kill people.
shareIt's the same system of illogicality you adopt to defend your position. Earlier you said courts and juries get it wrong, and seemed to feel this was sufficient validation as to how Dassey's court got it wrong. It isn't.
Same with coercion, with your linking of some irrelevant case while completely disregarding that no violence threats , promises of no prison time or even raised voices were used against Dassey, yet still insist on coercion and seem to think your irrelevant link is sufficient validation as to how Dassey was coerced. Again- it isn't.
Actually you stated earlier that you believed that Dassey was an accomplice who helped Avery clean up the crime scene before doing a u-turn and now proclaiming factual innocence.
I showed you that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence nor regarded as such by any western court. You ignored it.
I explained how a confession is regarded and evidence under the law and further showed you how inconsistency in statements is allowed by the law. You ignored that too and even recently have still gone on about minor inconsistencies as if this somehow validates your coercion claim. It doesn't. Just your feelings as I correctly observed right from the start.
Has Duffin asserted that coercion occurred? Have you read his report in its entirety? If so, do you think in the absence of threats and violence, such an assertion will stand? Or does he not claim actual coercion verbatim?
There was none of Rose West's DNA on the bodies. She claimed she was an innocent housewife and that her hubby Fred was the sole killer. Court didn't believe her bs any more than I believe the bs of Avery supporters. Because the court recognises that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, even if you don't.
You seem to think that Rose being present at a crime scene doesn't equate to no culpability, cuz bodies are found on the property, yet poor old Brendan being at a crime scene where a body is found on the property, despite leaving no DNA just as Rose didn't, does equate to no culpability and unlike you I don't engage in double standards or magical thinking, where the law means one thing for one offender and another thing for another offender especially if the poor guy has a low IQ, but can still read novels.
This is what you just don't seem to get and why I reiterate that you're simply running with your feelings and don't seem to realise that the law is egalitarian as is its criteria for what the law considers evidence against you. And Rose West. And Brendan Dassey.
You also disregard that none of Dassey's confession should be supported and there's no way you could read those transcripts and state that Dassey only gave info that the cops fed him when that's simply untrue which you yourself acknowledged via your earlier list, which you now seem to disregard.
Evidence, facts and the law mean nothing to you, once you get an idea in your head. That's what I'm forced to conclude from discussing issues with you. hence your disregarding of standard criteria and what the law considers evidence if it goes against your feelings.
Really expected better from you, I gotta say.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
As per doggie:
I noticed that you've been posting a lot more ever since you said you were going to start posting less b/c of filming.
[deleted]
Zing!!
Don't sell yourself short mate, I've always respected your efforts and work.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Jerk each other off in private next time.
shareAgain, you don't know what evidence is. Again I strongly believe you haven't read that report or if you did, you evidently don't understand it.
Duffin rules the confession involuntary, not false, meaning the content of the confession is evidence as is Dassey telling his mother.
Yet again you disregard that the law allows for a confession that is contrary and inconsistent. Despite it being explained to you more than once. You passionately feel that the law shouldn't apply to Dassey, I get that, you're entitled to your feelings, irrational as they may be.
Less forgivable however is your insistence on disregarding the law and still citing contrariness in a confession to make an objective case for an unfair process and then with zero irony accuse me of intellectual dishonesty while you willfully disregard what the law allows. Priceless.
And Duffin isn't a federal judge, which again makes me strongly suspect you haven't read or else don't understand his report.
No cat, disregarding the law to accommodate your feelings is the epitome of illogicality and you were saying something about projection earlier?
Again, nice well intentioned people like you who are all too willing to embrace that feel good narrative is why innocence fraud thrives. I truly and sincerely hope you open your eyes one day.
Cuz you're being played.
Cheers.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
But of course he wouldn't, seeing as he -- and you -- judging by both of you posts,ever since I've ben here, have sided on Avery's side, assuming guilt h the part of LE.
You think CVhas been unchallenged? How strange, considerering you yourself wrote me PRIVATELY to thank me for standing for you specifically againstwhat CV said about you, as well as other times; if not in this thread than another, although I supect it was in this thread. Should I copy and paste here your provate message to me on this topic, or will you come clean on your own?
On another thread, I believe, you criticize others for putting those ho diagree with them on ignore, dand yet your friend Doggie readily and quickly puts rhose with whom he disagrees on ignore.
I used to think you pretty reasonable snd fair, and honest, but am sorry to say I no longer think that's the case.
I have no idea who you're talking to, nor really care as it's clearly one of the morons on my ig list, (unless its Mr fbd in which case he's not on ig nor do I consider him a moron), but if someone sent you a private message then it should stay private. Threatening to reveal private messages really doesn't say much for you. A-hole that I can be, I'd never do stuff like that.
Glad you're sticking me on ignore as I'm starting to get the impression you're not nearly as nice as I originally thought.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
And doggie hasn't called anyone a "murderer groupie" who "admires SA and BD for what they did" or a hybristophiliac
///
Nor would he, for obvious reasons, doggie, like you, believes SA was framed by LE, and may or may not be guilty. But he has no compunction about insulting others who disagree w him, and you apparently have no problem w that, obviously bc you're on the same "side."
I find it surprising and, yes, disingenuous, that you'd say CV's insults went unchallenged when you KNOW that is a lie. In fact, you even wrote me -- privately I might add, rather than publicly posting -- to thank me for standing up for you. Do you deny this? Should I post your PM?
Additionally, it's hypocritical of you to say those who disagree w you, and others, readily put those who disagree w them on ignore, when the reality is doggie puts those whom he disagrees faster than anyone else here. So is that how he "votes"?
I can't find it now but somewhere you said I said SA suffered from alcoholic fetal syndrome, and I NEVER said that. It's a flat out lie on your part. I did say I think pa Avery is alcoholic and abusive, which is borne out by the behavior of his sons, and most likely ma Avery is also alcoholic. I still stand behind all of that.
You also said you didn't say the AT number was incorrect, and Dawn perjured herself by saying she called T rather than the other way around, and questioned Dawn's truthfulness bc she and T had a FIVE MINUTE conversation , as though that wasn't creditable. Good grief.
I finally get to ask her why, three years ago, she confessed to something she didn't do.
"It was a pretty long two hours, and all I could hear throughout those two hours was that they were going to give me help if I confessed," she replies. Then she apologizes, bows her head and starts crying.
"I never thought of the consequences."
Nope. Define help. Show me where they say "Brendan if you help us, you won't face so much as a nanosecond of prison time", that's how we're gonna help you".
Show me where they say "Brendan you better confess or my pal Fassbender here is gonna play a game called Russian Roulette on your ass!"
I'll even settle for "Brendan, you wanna go to the electric chair? You betetr start confessing so, or else it's ole sparky for you boy!"
Cuz that's coercion. Offering help or to stand behind you no matter what you did isn't a false promise and certainly not a false promise of leniency and nowhere near the same ballpark as coercion.
Telling a suspect that honesty is the best policy and then the suspect opening up with corroborated evidence belies a false confession and coercion. As does explaining to a suspect what an admission against interest is and asking if the suspect understands this.
Saying that someone with intellectual impairments can nonetheless glean info from certain clues and invent a detailed, albeit "involuntary" confession, seems a shade illogical and contradictory to me also although I'm sure it seems personally reasonable to you, long as Dassey being innocent feels right.
So can you gimme any examples of this occurring in the transcripts?
And again can you clarify whether Duffin uses the words "coercion" or "coerced" in his report? Assuming you've read it of course? It's just that I had a busy weekend and didn't make much headway so far so if you could just gimme the page number if that's okay, that will be great.
If you haven't read it then that's totally Kool & the Gang, but do me a favour and don't cite a judge's report which you haven't read to bolster your position as that's simply an appeal to authority which is another fallacy, ergo dismissed.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
But there wasn't and an expert not being retained does not equate to an unfair due process.
Dassey's confession doesn't fall under a false confession. False confessions aren't independently corroborated.
The court also deny it considering the conviction and nobody bothered testifying that he was actually mentally retarded. I didn't try Dassey it's irrelevant what I personally accept or deny.
Dassey wasn't threatened at all, never mind with the electric chair, nor shouted at or anything else. He was offered soda and a sandwich though.
No you haven't you're merely claiming it on the internet, but it wasn't proven where it mattered most, in court, as in the court which you say you're not claiming engaged in an unfair due process against Dassey.
Why? Because accusing somebody else of a crime isn't an admission against interest, that's why especially when you're accusing an accomplice. Are you saying that people should be convicted solely on the accusation of another?
Confessing to a crime though is an admission against interest and considered as evidence against you.
Gosh thanks so much for correcting my typo, you certainly showed me.
So for the nth time, how did this jury get it wrong? Specifically? Rather the coming to a verdict you disagree with personally?
I already opined how the jury got it wrong and couldn't comment more without reading the primary sources, re his exoneration.
No it isn't as if it was based on reliable evidence he wouldn't have been convicted bard after his defence went to bat for him.
You still haven't made a viable case for an unfair due process, just stuff that doesn't feel right to you. Apparently you think the bar should be raised for Dassey but that's not how the law works, sorry.
Unless you can show me with validity how Dassey's rights were violated and give an empirical case for coercion showing how the law was actually violated, unless you can gimme something solid that would trump the court and by extension my agreement, then I'm not sure why we're still having a discussion as I've given you a bunch of chances to validate your cliams and all I get is stuff you personally dislike, sorry.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
False confessions aren't independently corroborated.
From Vile's comments, it's clear he knows little about false confessions or this one in particular.
Re: Dassey's case, I refer to the earlier quotes, from his lawyers, a forensic psychologist, a senior prosecutor, and The Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth. Summarized:
The prosecutor:
"...from a prosecutor's perspective... the way I looked at a case, was corroboration. And to me, and I've taught this over and over again, but a confession is absolutely worthless unless you can corroborate it. I'll say it again: a confession is absolutely worthless unless it can be corroborated. And if you look at the Brendan Dassey case, there is zero corroboration, to back up that very, very weak confession he gave. The evidence that would've been left at that scene could not have been cleaned up by the sharpest individual, let alone Avery and Dassey. There is no way, they could have cleaned up all that blood. There is no way that there wouldn't have been marks left from shackles on the bed and everything else. There is no way that that young woman's hair wouldn't have been found in that trailer, or semen on the sheets of the bedding. Not a chance that those things wouldn't have been found. And the fact that there is zero physical evidence to corroborate a very, very weak and ridiculous confession taken by that young man should be enough for the Wisconsin prosecutors and the Wisconsin police to walk away from that case."The forensic psychologist:
"These are things that can move you beyond what you just see in the video tape. The judge saw Brendan has the power to make rational choices. That's what the judge said. But I think a forensic psychologist would help you understand that's not the case."From his lawyers:
"These last clips, especially the ones with Barb and with Brendan, were never shown to the jury in this case. They never got an explanation from Brendan as to why he confessed in that moment, right after the police officers were finished.From the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, which has taken on Dassey's case:
Where are we today? We've just taken you through the three errors that we see in all false confessions and taken you through the clips that we believe show they were present, and they controlled the outcome in Brendan's case. The court declined to suppress Brendan's confession -- the motion was brought by Len Kachinsy, his attorney -- we don't believe it was litigated very agressively by Mr. Kachinsky -- but again, during that motion to suppress, the tape was never played for the judge. He was convicted on the basis of his videotaped confession; the recantation was never shown to the jury, there was no expert testimony presented in this case to describe the phenomenon of false confessions -- no experts were presented even though Dean Strang and Jerry Buting had hired an expert to evaluate Brendan's confession, and that expert was ready to testify in the event that Brendan flipped and testified against Steven at his trial. That expert was ready to testify in Brendan's case. But his lawyers chose not to call him."
"Brendan’s confession can be charted in this manner. His knowledge of certain details—the fact that the victim was shot in the head and the fact that her vehicle’s battery had been disconnected— is quite obviously the product of police fact-feeding, as can be discerned from a careful review of the transcript of his interrogation.
His knowledge of other details, however, is not the product of fact-feeding. In fact, some of those details at first glance appear to be volunteered in response to open-ended questions. On closer review, however, his knowledge of these other details can be traced to other sources of contamination. The media had widely publicized the fact that the victim’s SUV and incinerated remains had been found on Avery’s property, for instance. Brendan, who lived next door to his uncle, was also quite familiar with these facts from overhearing his own family’s discussions of the case as it unfolded. Even the fact that the SUV had been covered with branches had been well publicized. Further, Brendan was independently familiar with his uncle’s home, which he had visited many times before, so his ability to describe where his uncle kept the bleach — in the bathroom, a room likely to be seen by a visitor — again did nothing to confirm guilty knowledge. And on even closer examination, those few details that Brendan gave during his confession that are not traceable to any contamination at all prove to be incorrect or, at the least, unverifiable. Despite tearing Avery’s home apart, police never were able to come up with any physical evidence — no speck of DNA, no loose strand of hair, no trace of blood — establishing that the victim had been sexually assaulted, that her hair had been cut, or that she had been stabbed. The below table summarizes these findings.
When viewed in this comprehensive manner, it is plain that Brendan was not able to say anything provably correct about the crime absent the guiding hand of contamination. Such a result is a red flag of unreliability.
While I fully believe that Brendan Dassey was not involved in the actual rape or murder of Teresa Halbach, I do believe he was involved in some way in the disposal of her body.
One of the problems with an analysis of false confessions is when assumptions are made about how information was injected into the confessor's statements. While the analyst will say "it could have been" or "you can see how his statement CAN have been influenced by" there is no way to definitively state one way or the other. For example: just because a statement matches something that was widely reported does not mean that's where the information came from -- it could be that the statement is true, the information is true, and the reports by the media were true. That doesn't mean the media shaped the confession.
However, in the case of Brendan Dassey, there is absolutely NO DOUBT from watching and reading everything I could about his case that police clearly manipulated him to providing the statement that he provided. NO DOUBT whatsoever.
That doesn't make it all a lie, every single bit of if, but it does mean that he was unfairly convicted of something I don't believe he was guilty of. Mutilation of a corpse? Sure. Sexual assault and murder? No way.
-----
Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/
Yes. The thing with Dassey's situation, as Laura Nirider, his lawyer, noted, is that all three errors that always accompany false confessions were present. Not just a little, but blatantly so. That's not including what a forensic psychologist's analysis would have had to say about the kid's capacity, especially in such a context. Then there's the senior prosecutor's observation of zero corroboration, and that there is no chance that all evidence in the bedroom could have been erased, even by a highly intelligent individual.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
You sir have been owned by the judge that brought down his decision today to overturn Dassey's conviction. Too funny!!! You seem to think you are super intelligent in your ramblings. YOU ARE WRONG!! BAHAHAHAHAHA
sharethere is a lot of evidence that this was the case'a lot' i think you mean none.. share
Yes, and borderline retardation isn't the only significant pesonal factor in Dassey's case. He's evidently extremely insecure and vulnerable to suggestion. He's almost the ideal candidate for false confession.
Dr. Antoinette Kavanaugh, Forensic Psychologist, was part of the panel linked above:
"The problem is that what's psychologically coercive to one person may not be to another. It's individually based. So that's why it's important to have a forensic psychologist talk to Brendan. Ask him things like, "I see in this videotape you're silent here. What are you thinking?" Or, "When the police said, 'I can help you,' what did you think they mean?" Because it's important to know from his perspective. That's what a good forensic psychological evaluation should do. Ask him questions so that the court can understand what was going on for him in the moment."Dr. Kavanaugh earned her Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine and her Board Certification in Forensic Psychology through the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP). Dr. Kavanaugh served as the Clinical Director of the Juvenile Justice Division of the Cook County Juvenile Court Clinic and was a clinical professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law for ten years. As a private practitioner, Dr. Kavanaugh has been retained as an expert on multiple Miller v. Alabama cases and evaluates youth and adults on a variety of forensic issues including: competence to understand Miranda rights, evaluations for Miller v. Alabama cases, competence to stand trial, transfer to adult court, wrongful convictions, ability to form intent, disputed confessions, pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity and mitigation. Additionally, she evaluates youth and adults involved in civil cases and testifies regularly in state and federal Courts. She specializes in matters pertaining to adolescent development and the juvenile justice system and regularly consults with and presents to child welfare, criminal justice, and juvenile justice agencies regarding how the differences between youth and adults come into play in the legal system."
Additionally, a forensic psychologist will talk to other people who know Brendan well, who are are not just his mother. He goes to school: that right there is a wealth of information. The psychologist will talk to his teacher and say things like, "When he doesn't understand, does he tell you he doesn't understand? When he doesn't understand, how does he act? Does he get quiet or does he get assertive." A forensic psychologist would also -- because I have problems understanding how he would understand his rights, as well -- so a forensic psychologist could ask the teacher, "Could he understand the words the police use in giving him his rights?"
Those sorts of things. Also to test him for listening comprehension. So we can see at what grade his listening comprehension is at, and whether or not we can expect it. These are things that can move you beyond what you just see in the video tape. The judge saw Brendan has the power to make rational choices. That's what the judge said. But I think a forensic psychologist would help you understand that's not the case."
Yes, and borderline retardation isn't the only significant pesonal factor in Dassey's case. He's evidently extremely insecure and vulnerable to suggestion. He's almost the ideal candidate for false confession.